Incompleteness of Logic/Rational Principles

Anyway, logic demands that either statement A be true, or it must be false. (it cannot be neither true or false, and it cannot be both true and false).

Now take the statement: "Nothing is permanent"
If we say that statement is true, then the statement "nothing is permanent" is permanent, and thus we have contradicted ourselves. However, if we say that something is permanent, and that permanent thing is the statement "nothing is permanent", then we have also contradicted ourselves.

Unless this paradox can in some way be resolved, then it seems there are in fact, exceptions to logic, that would then lead us to question the infallibility of logic.

Socrate's claim "I know one thing: that I know nothing" is also a paradox that seems to defy logic.

-----------
Fellow philosophers: visit the philosophy wiki; where anyone can add and edit philosophical articles and content, http://sophiasdialectic.com/dokuwiki/doku.php

meh... if you stop and ponder every contradiction you will find yourself consumed by them.

We already know that the statement is false. The past, for instance, is permanent- once any event has transitioned from the moment of the now into the past, it's immutably true. Billions of years from now it's fair to say that no one will remember that you existed. Yet the truth of the fact that you did exist will remain invariably true.

And even then, under other philosophical principles, the statement can very well be true.

What? How do you know the past is permanent? I don't really understand; you haven't given any evidence that would suggest the past is unchangable.



-----------
Fellow philosophers: visit the philosophy wiki; where anyone can add and edit philosophical articles and content, http://sophiasdialectic.com.

By the way, your sig is awsome.






-----------
Fellow philosophers: visit the philosophy wiki; where anyone can add and edit philosophical articles and content, http://sophiasdialectic.com.

Well you can't really prove that gravity is true, and we're dealing with abstracts here. However, here's a test:


You made that post.




Come back to me when that statement ceases to be true. You're going to be waiting approximately forever.

What happens if in 100 years we develop a time machine, and I travel back in time and decide not to make the post?

are we assuming that you are going to live another 100 years, and then develop a time machine... or is someone else going to make the time machine and come pick you up?

because that makes all the difference.

Well, ignoring for a moment the lack of evidence that would suggest that time travel is anything but incoherent sci-fi mumbo jumbo, the sequence of events is this;


1) You make the post

2) Someone develops a machine that can throw all the events of the Universe into reverse order, which in itself breaks most laws of nature.

3) They do this.

4) You affect a change that prevents you from making this post under new-time.





1 remains a true thing, however. While you can affect changes that make it seem as if it never happened, and the evidence of it's occuring is not eternal, it will be eternally true that it happened. The truth is immutable.

not to mention that language is used to describe events, objects ect and is not subject to the pardox you describe.