This is my most risky post. This is one of those posts I know will peg me as mad, but will turn out to be true, if only someone were to come along later and maybe re-word it so that it is more palatable to a wider audience. So here goes…
Much of philosophy is dependent upon three laws – what are called the three laws of formal ontology:
- The Law of Identity (ID). It states “That which is, is.”
- The Law of the Excluded Middle (EM). It states “Everything either is or is not.”
- The Law of Non-contradiction (NC) (also strangely called the Law of Contradiction). It states “Nothing can both be and not be.”
I will show you that the last law (NC) is a contradiction in itself, and by being so, admits the validity of paradox.
But first, some ‘ground rules’ or tools with which to break down the three laws:
- Take to be True that which is permanent, which ‘hold still’. Truth forever is True.
- Take to be False that which is not permanent, that which does not ‘hold still’. Falsity is never (not forever) True.
- The inverse of ‘is’, where ‘is’ is ‘not-not’. So, ‘not’, on its own, is of similar quality to False, because it is unstable, undeterminable, and can never ‘hold’. All odd numbers of ‘nots’ are identical to a single ‘not’.
- The inverse of ‘not’, or not ‘not’. ‘Not-not’, is of similar quality to True, because it is, stable and determinable, and will forever ‘hold’. All even numbers of ‘not’s are identical to a double ‘not’ –> ‘not-not’.
- This is ‘not’, in the sense of ‘one, not the other’, this is a part, a disjunction, as per above False.
- This is not ‘Or’, or ‘not-not’, in the sense ‘Not(one not the other)’, this is the rejection of the part, acceptance of the whole, a conjunction, as per above True.
- That which exists and that from which is existed, both Thing and not-Thing. “Is and is not” which is ‘not-not not-not not-not not’, which is False, forever changing and unpredictable and cannot hold still.
- A ‘thing’ is what is, that which stands-out from the All, i.e. that which is not-All. Thing evaluates to “not-All”, so one more ‘not’, and so evaluates to ‘not-not’. True.
- That which is not-Thing, i.e. “not not-All” – where ‘not-not’ is, so “Nothing is All”. Nothing == All. Nothing has the same qualities as All and as Falsity, it is forever changing and unpredictable and cannot hold still. False.
Now let us look at these laws:
The Law of Identity: “That which is, is.”
- “That which is”, is “Thing” as per above. Thing is ‘not-not’.
- “Is”, we’ve seen, is ‘not-not’.
Rebuilding this statement, we have “Thing is”: ‘not-not not-not not-not’: ID is True.
The Law of the Excluded Middle: “Everything either is or is not.”
- “Everything” is ‘every (single) thing’. We can thus consider just one ‘thing’ and consider its truth to be applicable to every one of them. Thing is ‘not-not’.
- “Either” is superfluous to “or”, so we can rephrase it to “Everything is or is not.”
- “Is”, we’ve seen, is ‘not-not’.
- “Or”, above, is ‘not’.
- “Is not”, is ‘not-not not’.
Rebuilding this statement, we have “Thing is or is not”: ‘not-not not-not not not-not not’ – eight ‘nots’, which is True. EM is True.
The Law of Non-Contradiction: “Nothing can both be and not be.”
- “Nothing” is ‘No Thing’, is not Thing, is ‘not not-All’, is ‘is All’, evaluates to ‘not-not-not’.
- “Can”, is permission, so is equivalent to “is”, ‘not-not’.
- “Both” is superfluous to ‘and’, just as ‘either’ was superfluous to ‘or’.
- “Be” is “is”, ‘not-not’.
- “And”, as above, is “is”, ‘not-not’
- “Not be” is not “Be”, is not “is”, is “is not”, ‘not-not-not’.
Rebuilding the statement, we have “Nothing is and is not”: ‘not-not-not not-not not-not not-not-not’ – ten ‘nots’, which is True.
But let’s look at that last one (NC) again: We’ve seen that Nothing is All. So “All can both be and not be” This is a permissive statement indicating that A=¬A, a paradox! How can the Law of Non-Contradiction contradict itself?!? Because it admits paradox! At every moment, we remain coherent, even though it sounds so strange: “Nothing is and is not” <–> ”All is and is not”<–> ”All is True and False” (which, finally, is of vital importance if we’re to even have a concept of Truth, because there can be no Truth without what is not-True). This only admits that our Reality allows for the existence of Paradox (which, when you think about it, makes sense A) because we’ve got a name for it: Paradox, and B) we’re a part of this Reality, and we can conceive of Paradox, and C) it is a truly pesky thing which keeps cropping-up whenever mathematicians try to formalize the logic of the fundamentals of mathematics – paradox doesn’t go away!).
All, some may argue is not Nothing. But when you take Everything, and remove all boundaries between every Thing, you are left with a masse whole with no Thing – which is the apeiron – the All with out limit.