But Harv:

Aurino: "That is, without logic there is no proof of anything!***" Aurino is right here, and Harv agreed.

But near the end Harv says: "the following may actually be the case: ...."

He said "may actually BE"; note this word "BE".
As soon as you apply the verb "to BE": you have lost the case. LNC applies whenever the verb "to be" applies.

Harv: "Nothing prevents (I*) from being true."
"BEING true"? Whatever pattern-matching (e.g. Tarski pattern matching) you use to give the relationship that is your meaning of "truth";
what prevents (I*) from being true is that (I*) is prohibited from BEING anything.

As (I*) negates BEING, (I*) cannot BE true, or BE at all. (I*) is (I*), isolated from all that exists in its non-existence, you might say.

-dolphin

• More on LNC - harvey1 - April 14, 2002 - 14:16 UTC
  • Approximate nature of description - dolphin - April 17, 2002 - 05:10 UTC
    • Fun with Metalogic - harvey1 - April 17, 2002 - 15:42 UTC
      • LNC does not require reasons to accept - dolphin - April 21, 2002 - 04:44 UTC