how can truths be contradictory...?

examples pls

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 3 years ago

    “Everything is more complicated than you think. You only see a tenth of what is true.

    There are a million little strings attached to every choice you make; you can destroy

    your life every time you choose. But maybe you won’t know for twenty years and you may

    never ever trace it to its source.”

    — Charlie Kaufman

    Energy Limits to the Computational Power of the Human Brain

    http://www.merkle.com/brainLimits.html

    How the mind works

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/In...

    The Limits of Intelligence

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-limi...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-207...

    There are no absolute truths

    https://socraticsociety.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/t...

    There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths. Friedrich Nietzsche

    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/friedr...

  • 3 years ago

    In the 1930s, Austrian mathematician Godel proved a

    theorem which became the "Godel theorem" in cognition

    theory. It states that any formalized 'logical' system

    in principle cannot be complete in itself. It means

    that a statement can always be found that can be

    neither disproved nor proved using the means of that

    particular system. To discuss about such a statement,

    one must go beyond that very logic system; otherwise

    nothing but a vicious circle will result. Psychologist

    say that any experience is contingent - it's opposite

    is logically possible and hence should not be treated

    as contradictory.

    Flaws in Reasoning and Arguments: Black and White Thinking

    http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflawsinreasonin...

    "Goedel's results are the crucial evidence that stable self-contained

    systems of reasoning cannot be perfect (just because they are stable and

    self-contained). Such systems are either very restricted in power (i.e.

    they cannot express the notion of natural numbers with induction

    principle), or they are powerful, yet then they lead inevitably either

    to contradictions, or to undecidable propositions".

    http://www.ltn.lv/~podnieks/gt.html

    Millions of lawyers are thriving due to this contradiction.

  • small
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    Truth by definition can not be contradicted by any other truth..... in other words, if any truth is contradicted, it is no truth by definition.

    The apparent contradictions can happen in our own understanding due to time, place or person having changed or simply on account of the imperfection or inadequacy in whatever we know.

  • 3 years ago

    There is a disconnect for example between big and small. there's math that describes what we see with the big universe- whole objects, molecules, atoms. then there's math that describes what we see with sub-atomic particles- electrons, neutrinos, etc. The math is incompatible. The quantum math only works for the quantum world, and the big math only works for the big world. In my hand there's a cell with a molecule with an atom, but the atom and what it's made of behave totally differently, and the respective math says the other shouldn't be as it is.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 3 years ago

    Light is a particle AND a wave. Quantum physics makes accurate predictions using this contradiction. Life is temporary but we are immortal (I do not believe in an afterlife so I am not making a religious statement.)

    Why does consciousness feel infinite while being finite? Because the iterations of the brain are a very big number. How can so much happen in so small a space (the skull.) THAT is a deep contradiction.

    That everything we know is an approximation and that truth is not "truth" may be another one, but given the way you ask the question I suspect you would not agree.

  • 3 years ago

    How can truths be contradictory...?

    This can happen when not enough is known about the problem.

    Take "climate change" for example. If some significant parts of the land are not warming up

    then this could be taken as no GENERAL warming is taking place. And vice versa.

    And staying with this current problem -- when enough scientists decide that warming is

    not taking place then the authority and the truthfulness of these scientists could easily

    outweigh the conclusions of those who look-longer-term and who agree that longer term

    warming is still taking place.

    Concerning logic and maths contradictory truths, there are enough of these for us to be

    critically sceptical of such things as "modal propositions", "quantificational statements"

    and "subcontraries" (not that we cannot use such grand sounding names).

    To name just 2 examples (that have been highlighted previously),

    1. "tertium" in logic, when between WW 1 & 2 the Polish logical experts were obliged to consider

    this as a relevant add-on to "2-step logic" of truth- falsity - ?

    2. Y.Zhang's modern math work of getting an ordered-Pattern from a previously known random number

    pattern. Others too have gone on to produce similar work results but with lower random-to-ordered

    Pivot numbers.*

    I believe sincerely that 1. above has taken a hold upon^ metaphysical logic and metamathematics.

    And if we go back to the 1930's and Gödel's Incompleteness proof, we could see or untangle the

    Two major school mistakes that was his original mission.

    But we have gone along with Gödel's criticism whilst not fully integrating the mistakes of those 2

    maths schools just noted.

    And the common-sense reasoning of critically understanding of both 1. and 2. could well be a

    part of Gödel's... Incompleteness legacy. And if this is true then contradictory truths could no

    doubt occur automatically so-to-speak...with no basis in fact (no basis in physical conditions or

    technology, for example,).

    * "pivot" numbers 70 M, 246 and 6.

    ^ And 2. also "has-taken-a-hold", going by the history of the basis of this type of

    mathematics. What I mean is that there is here an Undoubted rooted connection (expounded

    clearly in Wikipedia and others) in this maths with SOCIAL SCIENCE...where we are told

    of Y.Zhang's rise-to-fame as a lowly burger bar worker who had plenty-of-time to work on

    his problem from his university work. This work is closely connected with the older problem

    of not-only-finding-a-limit within Infinity but also of finding THE LIMIT (to infinity...as it now

    is called...finding AN END TO the sequence of INFINITE numbers).

    This is clearly stated in the authoritative account, going so far as to state that "mathematicians

    HATE the uncontrolled number sequence that is, Infinity".

    And there you have it, a social science input to the intractable math problem of infinity.

    A real part of our history, not just one of the logicians/mathematics.

    Source(s): I made a mistake above, for the Polish historical and logical school(s) were destroyed early 1940 so that their modern work on the old "Tertium" started earlier, see S. McCall's Polish logic between the wars, et al. And my main plan, work above may show that I tried to explain some logic as literally starting in Objective life - the "times" of a society, its practical contemporary problems and how they tackled such realisations - including of course how they (and we)...
  • 3 years ago

    They cannot.

    (1) Modal Square https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/

    modal square

    In the twelfth century, Peter of Spain (1972: 7) offers a particularly elegant formulation in his Tractatus; it will be seen that these apply to the modal propositions in (1) as well as to the quantificational statements in the original square:

    The law of contradictories is such that if one contradictory is true the other is false and vice versa, for nothing can be simultaneously true and false.

    Each contradictory is equivalent to the negation of the other.

    Each contradictory entails and is entailed by the negation of the other.

    The law of contraries is such that if one is true the other is false but not vice versa.

    Each contrary statement entails the negation of the other but not vice versa. [E.g. “I am happy” unilaterally entails “I am not unhappy”; “It is necessary that Φ” unilaterally entails “It is not impossible that Φ”.]

    The law of subcontraries is such that if one is false the other is true but not vice versa.

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    Same thing perceived from different perspectives

    eg 3 blind men describing differeent parts of the same elephant

  • Jim
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    "All of the Churches are guilty of abominations." And what they teach is brainwash.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.