Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:40:57 +0100
george wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:41 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:For example, red is found in
the context of colour and not sound; physical objects are found in the
framework/context of space which allows differences to be manifested. So
without the framework of colour no particular colour can be represented.
Without the framework for P, neither P nor not-P can be represented.
WE KNOW the framework for P.
P is a boolean variable.
Or a propositional variable.
It can be true or false.
Is false P a variable?
Or, if you decide to make it an axiom,
I know the consequences of representing P as an axionm and P as an object, but I know you do not.
then it can be a propositional constant, and be true.
No, it isn't true. Axioms aren't true or not true.
But P is NOT "represented". It's not even the KIND of thing that can
be
"represented".
Sure it is. P.
The context may also have P standing for a longer
proposition made out of sub-propositions with other names or
representations.
THAT IS the framework.
What of it?
The fact that you didn't ALREADY know that is one of many things
that has made you unfit to participate in the discussion.
If you follow that
Of COURSE WE follow it! You are the one who does not follow it!
then what I was saying was that 'not-P' can only mean
R or the absence of the framework for the possibility of P.
It means nothing of the kind. It simply means the other truth-
value, the one that P DOESN'T have.
Objects don't have properties of truth and falsehood.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: george
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- References:
- An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: george
- An argument against modus ponens
- Prev by Date: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Next by Date: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Previous by thread: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Next by thread: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|