Venting The logical argument for nothing ever happens

[Jar Jar Binks]

The battle of the chatbots

 

[brutalist]

You're still confusing permissibility within logic with entailment from logic. The block model is compatible with LNC and doesn’t rely on naive “commonsense". It formalizes plurality through structure. The claim that “plurality has no logical basis” only follows if you've already rejected any model that distinguishes identity across temporal or spatial coordinates.

You're presupposing spacetime locations are real, how have you not understood this point yet. All your arguments are built off this certainty. This has to be proved.

You're building monism into your definitions and then pointing to the definitions as if they’re evidence, which isn't logical necessity. Plurality doesn’t violate logic; it’s what logic requires to function, since you can’t even assert “being is” without presupposing differentiation between statements that are and are not true.

Not true. Being is known by being. Its negation isn't differentiation in the sense you're using. If you argue otherwise you'd be contradicting your previous statement re: privation.

this is a misapplication of negation. “Not being at B” doesn’t entail ontological non-being, only relational absence. This is exactly how identity across a manifold works. Saying event A is not at point B is no more a violation of LNC than saying 1 ≠ 2.

You're conflating a conceptual distinction with a "real" one. Plus as ive said repeatedly relational absence inherently presumes plurality. You're sneaking in empiricism no matter how many times you deny it. Try again without appealing to muh senses!

Persistence doesn’t require something to never not exist, it requires consistency within a frame. You’re assuming that because X is not present here, it must be absolutely not. That’s a false dichotomy born from collapsing relative location or time into absolute ontological negation.

But again, you haven't shown why predicates like “red” and “yellow” logically entail non-being. You’re assuming that difference = deficiency, which only holds under your own metaphysical definition of negation. Your use of the LNC already presupposes that any difference must involve ontological absence.

Again this the presumes the reality of spacetime locations.

But modern logic and semantics don’t define negation that way. There’s no contradiction in saying an apple is red and not yellow, unless you arbitrarily define “not yellow” as metaphysical non-being.

Not at an empirical level no. But thats not what we're discussing.

Of course logic places constraints, but not unique outcomes. It weeds out contradiction, not all possible alternatives like you do. My point is that logic does not mandate identity-based monism. That’s the distinction you're refusing to make: just because logic filters out incoherence doesn’t mean it chooses a metaphysics. That requires metaphysical premises, which you keep denying you're using.

Also, recognizing that logic and ontology are not identical is not “separating” them arbitrarily. This is simply a recognition of the limits of formal systems. Godel, Wittgenstein, and others have shown that formal logic cannot close over all metaphysical truth without circularity.

Being itself is an epestemic-ontological foundation. You concede this. If being is, non being cannot be (contradicts LNC). You concede this. Sensory data is unreliable. You concede this. That just leaves us with absolutes (being and non being) You deny this but offer no rebuttal other than appeal to the senses then have the gall to accuse me of being circular

No one’s claiming reality is “outside logic.” What I am saying is that logic structures our intelligibility of reality, not necessarily the whole of being itself. The fact that logic is required to express thoughts doesn’t mean those thoughts must all conclude with monism.

And you still haven’t shown why the only consistent reading of LNC is Parmenidean monism rather than, say, a structurally unified but pluralistic ontology like the block universe.

You’re also treating a syntax like it’s a god.

Look if you wanna reply ask a mod to move this to the sewers or PM me since you're probably pissing off a lot of users by bumping this constantly and forcing them to put me on ignore. If you're not going to assimilate the least you can do is respect the forum culture. It doesn’t hurt to not be a nuisance. Thanks.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

You're presupposing spacetime locations are real, how have you not understood this point yet. All your arguments are built off this certainty. This has to be proved.

You're mistaking a model for a claim of naive realism. I’m not saying spacetime locations are "real" in an empirical sense. We are talking about logical coherence, not sensory proof. The block universe isn’t a sensory artifact; it’s a mathematical structure derived from the same logical constraints you claim lead to monism.

Not true. Being is known by being. Its negation isn't differentiation in the sense you're using. If you argue otherwise you'd be contradicting your previous statement re: privation.

I’m not denying that we know being through being. I’m denying that this knowledge collapses all difference into illusion. Saying "being is" doesn’t entail there’s only one undifferentiated being. It just means that being is the ground of all intelligibility, which includes difference, not just identity. You still haven’t shown how difference logically collapses into non-being, unless you're baking that into your definitions from the start.

You're conflating a conceptual distinction with a "real" one.

You’re trying to pull this distinction while asserting that logic alone tells us what’s real. That’s an incoherent move. If the distinction is meaningless, your own arguments become meaningless too, because they rely on conceptual differentiation. Either logic applies to conceptual distinctions or it doesn’t. You can’t use it selectively.

Plus as ive said repeatedly relational absence inherently presumes plurality.

Correct. And plurality is not forbidden by logic. You’re assuming that because plurality exists, and plurality differs, it must imply contradiction. But difference does not entail contradiction. That’s the entire point of logical negation. You haven’t demonstrated a violation of LNC.

You're sneaking in empiricism no matter how many times you deny it. Try again without appealing to muh senses!

This is ironic, because you’re the one treating abstraction as metaphysical reality. I’ve explicitly avoided empirical appeals, as I’ve used formal models (like relativity, set theory, predicate logic) that are internally coherent, not sense based. The fact that you're forced to dismiss all plural structures as "empirical contamination" is proof you're relying on dogma, not logic.

Again this the presumes the reality of spacetime locations.

Nope. It presumes the possibility of indexing statements like “A is not B” or “X ≠ Y” without implying that X is non-being. If logic allows such distinctions, then monism isn’t entailed.

Not at an empirical level no. But thats not what we're discussing.

And you still haven’t shown how saying “red ≠ yellow” implies ontological absence. Your insistence that difference is privation is a metaphysical imposition, not a conclusion of logic.

Also, as I have already said: you're treating logic as something floating in a vacuum, self-justifying and absolute. But even the principles of logic (like identity, LNC) emerge through abstraction from experience which is empirical input. Not in the naive sensory sense, but in how the structure of our cognition forms constraints based on interacting with the world. If logic was truly metaphysically prior in your sense, there’d be no reason why non-classical logics (like paraconsistent or intuitionist logic) could even be coherent. But they are. Point is, logic is a framework, not an ontological dictator.

logic is itself shaped by empirical constraints, even if indirectly. Godel, Quine, and Lakoff all, in different ways, demonstrated that logic is not a pure Platonic entity. It’s a tool, not a revelation. Stop treating it as such.

Being itself is an epestemic-ontological foundation. You concede this. If being is, non being cannot be (contradicts LNC). You concede this. Sensory data is unreliable. You concede this. That just leaves us with absolutes (being and non being) You deny this but offer no rebuttal other than appeal to the senses then have the gall to accuse me of being circular

I deny your leap from “being is” to “all plurality is illusion.” That’s not LNC. it’s you stapling metaphysics onto syntax.

Look if you wanna reply ask a mod to move this to the sewers or PM me since you're probably pissing off a lot of users by bumping this constantly and forcing them to put me on ignore. If you're not going to assimilate the least you can do is respect the forum culture. It doesn’t hurt to not be a nuisance. Thanks.

You’ve made it clear that your position is dogmatic, not dialectical. You can stop replying if you want to. Don’t try to reframe this as me being a nuisance when you’re equally participating

 

[Manlet_cel]

We have always been

Are u giving some religious argument here?