/lit/ - Literature

>>12517753
Because it's one way and not the other. It's only one thing, not two things at once.

>>12517763
this doesnt apply to anything

>>12517763
but what about quants and quantum programming? Atoms are in one place or in another depends where we look. Its like universe is just in our mind

>>12517763
>why do opposites attract?

Wittgenstein uses a very weird vocabulary when he characterizes certain concepts falling into the 'logical' and others into the 'psychological' categories. Logical means eternal, while psychological means contingent. Keeping this in mind may help you read Wittgenstein a bit better.

>>12517779
It is in my mind. But that is because I am the receptical from the future that has had the entire history of earth stored in my memories through a seriers of related images and now I am here to give you The Overstanding.

>>12517779
please die

>>12517779
This guy, go back to watch william lane craig videos because this is how you sound like

>>12517766
Yes it does. A square circle is illogical because a square can't be square if it's a circle and a cirlce can't be round if it's square. Therefore, it is only one way, not two ways at the same time.

>>12517839
why circle cant be square? why square cant be circle? Its just fucking words, meaning of you are unable to communicate

>>12517861
We're not talking about words. A square cannot be a circle. A circle cannot be a square.

>>12517871
A square cannot be circle. Why? "Because it is logical". My question is: what does that mean

>>12517871
Depends how you define circle and square no?

Is a logical argument both valid and sound? Could it just be valid?

>>12517876
Being circular is a necessary property of a circle. There are no possible worlds in which the thing we define as circle has both the property of being circular and being squared, because those properties exclude each other when applied to the same referent.
The sentence "This circle is squared" would be false (excluding Witty's theory on unsinnig propositions, and considering common sense) because we cannot imagine a circle being squared, otherwise it would be, actually, a square.

>>12517763
Is the ‘the King of France is bald’ true or not?

>>12517924
I define square as a four sided thing, so pic related is both a circle and a square

>>12517924
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cellular-automata/supplement.html

>>12517939
I'm pretty sure you can't call those archs "sides". Even if you did, many other object would have the same property of having four sides, without being squares...

In the sentence" the circle is squared" it is assumed that language users share background information that allows them to refer to the object squares intending the same object.

>>12517932
depends on what "the King of France" and "bald" mean

>>12517963
>I'm pretty sure you can't call those archs "sides
Watch me nigga

>>12517965
Well, obviously, but that's the point. At face value, the sentence is both true and false. The actual King of France doesn't exist, so he can't be bald - but yet the sentence still makes sense, so on some level it must be true. At least if you're Frege, that is.

>>12518057
>The actual King of France doesn't exist
Nuh huh

>>12518077
Why are the French so cucked, imagine this Chad as their Head of State.

>>12517797
very underrated

>>12517939

Don't you need four right angles?

>>12517939
Lmao you really think you did something here

>>12518057
The sentence is grammatically correct and semantically coherent, but is factually incorrect.

>>12517939
The definitions matter less than the proof of the definitions. You can define whatever you want but unless you provide a proof that demonstrates the validity of your ass-pulled definition then all that you say to dismantle the truth of certain objects in the universe being only and only that object are made null. In other words, a circle, no matter what you call it, will remain a circle, but since we called what we observe mathematically as a shape with all points equidistant from each other as a circle then no, a circle can never be a square as a square is an object with 4 equal sides parallel from each other. A object that has all points equidistant from each other and an object that has 4 sides parallel from each other can never exist simultaneously as a single object, i.e. a square circle.

>>12517753
go to bed ludwig