Does a Universal Truth Exist?

(P & P) evaluates to P. Are you claiming that ¬P is a tautology?
Well it is not complex. (P & P) alone can evaluate to P. This is logically contingent ¬(p & p) to a tautology as long as we can assume that the same two propositional variables are either true and true or false and false.

They are both the same as well as devoid of contents that each are repetition of the information provided.
 
I am kind confused on this whole thing. In the beginning, Mesoy submitted the formula ¬(P & ¬P) ; and, then later Warpus said it is a tautology. I said that he is using Liebniz formalization of Aristotle famous "law." Now how can the law of non-contradiction be a tautology? I must confess that I poorly explain what the tautology is in a condense way, but how the hell can it be a tautology when one true sentence to another false sentence be logically equivalent to a tautology? It is not implying as one single sentence but two different ones that overlapped onto each other at the same time.
 
Except when dealing with the creation of the universe. The 2nd LoT general tells us the universe is running down.
The universe was highly ordered at its creation. When gravity dominates, a homogeneous distribution of matter is completely thermodynamically unstable and has low entropy. Black holes have the maximum amount of entropy of any object of equal size, for example.

If it wasn't highly ordered, then there would be no arrow of time.

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington said:
"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
 
Let me spell it out for you:
(P & P) evaluates to P.
¬(P & P) evaluates to ¬(P).
¬(P) evaluates to ¬P.

If ¬(p & p) is a tautology, then ¬p must be a tautology as well.

I see that.

But why did you submit this formula in the first place? ¬(P & ¬ P)

Which happen to start this mess. Did you intend to make it as a tautology or not?
 
There is no absolute truth, as even the most basic of facts are based on the assumptions that we can trust at least some of our observations and that we exist.
 
I never liked Descartes' cogito ergo sum; the question Do I exist? is, like Is there a universal truth? a self-answering one. Which leads to the following: there's at least one universal truth - every living beings knows it exists. (And if you want to know why, I'll explain it - but I don't want to interrupt this highly interesting ¬ ( P & ¬ P) discussion, except by saying it's clearly not a universal truth, because not everyone knows it. It's similar to the existence of God question, although our mathematicians may not realize this.)
 
I never liked Descartes' cogito ergo sum; the question Do I exist? is, like Is there a universal truth? a self-answering one. Which leads to the following: there's at least one universal truth - every living beings knows it exists. (And if you want to know why, I'll explain it - but I don't want to interrupt this highly interesting ¬ ( P & ¬ P) discussion, except by saying it's clearly not a universal truth, because not everyone knows it. It's similar to the existence of God question, although our mathematicians may not realize this.)
Why is self consciousness, even if rudimentary, a universal truth? Life hardly makes up the bulk of the universe.
 
"Life's a . .. .. .. .. . and then you die."
 
Why is self consciousness, even if rudimentary, a universal truth? Life hardly makes up the bulk of the universe.

True, but only living beings worry about life - and the universe. (It's a human concept; the universe doesn't care about us caring about the universe.)
 
True, but only living beings worry about life - and the universe. (It's a human concept; the universe doesn't care about us caring about the universe.)
I would think that a universal truth would extend to every aspect of creation, living and non living.
 
That would then be a typical human thought. (I don't see animals worry about universal truths - nor the universe itself.) QED
 
I would think that a universal truth would extend to every aspect of creation, living and non living.

That would then be a typical human thought. (I don't see animals worry about universal truths - nor the universe itself.) QED
I would think that any "universal truth" would be independent of humans and their thoughts. They would have to apply to animals (or bacteria) even though animals may never be aware of them. The ability to ponder "universal truths" may be distinctly human, but that should not limit the application of such truths to humans alone.
 
And now I am quoting myself:

there's at least one universal truth - every living beings knows it exists.

And to answer your original question here's another universal truth: there are living things and innate things in the universe. (And, extrapolating from this: the difference, however, is a subtle one.)

QED.

If you think about it, it's not that difficult to postulate a universal truth. (Which, BTW, answers the original question of this thread as well.)
 
Back
Top Bottom