Verified answer

Hi

If you think that there are true contradictions (i.e., true statements of the form 'P & ~P'), then you are a dialetheist and will want to go for a paraconsistent logic like Graham Priest's. I'm not convinced that there really are any true contradictions. Most people who propose changes to classical logic advocate the rejection of the law of excluded middle but want to keep the law of non-contradiction, although Priest goes the other way, rejecting the latter and maintaining the former. I guess that the most compelling arguments for dialetheism would appeal to the semantic paradoxes, although it seems to me that there are better ways of dealing with these than allowing that there are true contradictions.

As I understand it, you can hold that there are true contradictions without giving up the principle of bivalence (I take 'binary logic' to be two-valued - i.e., "bivalent" - logic). Indeed, I take this to be Priest's position: every sentence (or proposition) is true or false, but some are both true and false. You could devise a non-bivalent system which allowed for the possibility that some contradictions should be true, but I don't think that anyone ever has (or would want to).

I don't know how much help this will be, as I'm not sure what you mean by "the contradiction". There are (potentially) infinitely many contradictions; do you have a specific one in mind? Priest would take the following sentence to be both true and false.

(A) This sentence is false.

If 'A' is true, then it is false; if 'A' is false, then it is true (assuming basic principles concerning truth and falsehood). I would try to solve this paradox differently, and I think that it's fair to say that most other people would, too.

isn't the worldwide at great a delusion? definite, it relatively is a question, not a fact. i does not pass through this test. i'm not somebody that believes in a burning bush or somebody strolling on water, etc. i've got faith those issues to be symbolism for that particular faith... i don't have faith in an excellent style of what David Blaine or that one guy who's have been provided that practice "Mindfreak" do. David Copperfield, nope. What they are doing isn't even symbolic. they gained't be written interior the historic previous books... ok. i'm off the factor. the reason those human beings have faith what they do is by using the fact there is not any proving it the two way and their father and mom reported it became authentic. it rather is probably not a delusion. it rather is confusion.

its been a while since uni and doing any proposition logic but p, ~p is not valid. Why have you said "but it is...". what you said isn't even a contradiction you haven't included any operators (such as ^) and there is no conclusion. what you have said would be the same as listing two numbers and calling it a maths equation.