Can the law of contradiction be violated?

Question

The principle of contradiction, the law of non-contradiction, states that: "something cannot both BE and NOT BE at the same time, in the same way, and in the same respect" That is, "A is not = to not A." Can this principle of logic be violated? Can something be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense, i.e. having the same meaning?

If so, HOW..Please DEMONSTRATE.


Demonstrate your answer by a CONCRETE EXAMPLE, e.g. "The principle can be violated in this situation.....ergo leading to the conclusion that this both IS and IS NOT in the same exact sense and way. (NOTE: A lot of things can be and not be , but NOT in the same way, e.g. A cup may be both white and not white, but not in the same way and in the same respect, i.e. the cup may have a white base but a blue handle.

Opinions do not violate the principle. Opinions are subjective, the principle deals with objectivity.

"This sentence is false," or other negative paradoxes , DO violate the principle of contradiction. Unfortunately they don't mean or signify anything. My question needs to be revised.. "Can the principle be violated while that which violates it still means something, signifies something. "This (very) sentence is false" means nothing and signifies nothing outside itself

God creating an immovable rock is a contradiction, in that there is no such thing as an immovable rock (it is against the nature of rock to be immovable, i.e. a rock implies finitude, quantifiable).A contradiction is nothing, and God cannot do nothing. The real question is perhaps can God limit himself? The answer is no.

The cat in the box thing . Interesting. I've heard this before but never really understood it until your post. Why without the observer? 2, If the material decays in anyway that would mean that the cat would die, regardless if the material was both, the fact that it was decayed woudl lead to the consequence of the cat's death, maybe quantums can be and not be (im not sure what that means, if that means in the same way and respect) but a cat cannot. so once the cat is dead , it is dead. Either way, You will get best answer ! (unless someone tops yours) Thanks

Answer 1

zolnux's example is a good one. The Liar's paradox is a classic example of a statement that is both true and false. Also there may be examples in quantum physics of particles both present and not present in the same space, but I don't know enough about that to say. And the law of non-contradiction is not too useful when discussing complex situations because it reduces everything to a binary state (obtains or doesn't obtain, true or false). So, for example, when you're stating if a man is bald or not, it is usually the case that he is not totally bald, but doesn't have a full head of hair either. Its not exactly a violation of the law, but binary logic makes it difficult to capture the truth in situations like that. Instead fuzzy logic is much better. But, like I said, thats not a violation, only a limit on how well classical logic can represent truth in complex circumstances. Generally the rule of non-contradiction is a useful one, and without it a lot of philosophy would be impossible, but I don't think its necessarily an absolute law.

ADD: Ok, in response to your additional requirement: what about the classical problem of God creating a stone too heavy for him to lift. If God is all powerful, he could create a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift, but if he is all-powerful he would be able to lift it. The statement refers to something outside of itself, and violates the law of non-contradiction by claiming that God would both be able to lift the stone and not be able to lift the stone.

If you want an actual physical violation of the law, I think quantum physics is the most likely place to look. Physicists talk about particles both being in a certain state and not being in that state. The fact that particles seem to both be decaying and not decaying motivated the schroedinger's cat thought experiment:
"Thus, we have Schrödinger's celebrated cat, placed (within the context of a thought experiment) inside a sealed box along with radioactive material and a vial of poison gas that will be released if that material decays. Given quantum uncertainty, an atom inhabits both states—decayed and non-decayed—simultaneously, rendering the cat (in the absence of an observer outside the system) both alive and dead."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/#ConNegTerProLog

Our idea of non-contradiction is a belief supported by our macroscopic world. We never observe things both being and not being. But i don't know if taking this observation and making it universal is justified. It seems to be an example of inductive reasoning. (All swans observed are white, therefore all swans are white. All phenonmenon observed are non-contradictory, therefore all phenonmenon are non-contradictory.) Great question by the way.

Answer 2

A perfectly identical thing or situation, I believe, is possible to occur at the same time. But not in the physical sense everything is viewed in. Our own perceptions of our surroundings can't prove at this time the law of contradiction to be false or violated because we see what we want or are use to seeing. I.E. Dogs see in 2 demonsions. We see in 3. Maybe when we get to 4 or 5 through evolution or a man-made instrument, we will be able to view simutanious actions that can both 'be and not be.'

Answer 3

By acceptance, demonstrating that legislated linear logic is not only existing logic. Would be done only in absence of judgment, in thoughtless state, or so called meditative state. Violation is an action which creates a reaction. and it will painfully indicate activity of a mind, so do not do it at "home", rather be out, embracing "home" peacefully...mind should be inactive... The movement will not violate the Law, rather eliminate it, proving that so-called contradictions does not exist outside of a mind, thus self created within it. As long contradictions cease to exist, the Law of contradictions will not have its reality, nothing to violate at first place.

Answer 4

How is this for you?

Statement 1: Statement 2 is false.
Statement 2: Statement 1 is true.

Answer 5

This sentence is false.

Play with that for a while.

Answer 6

i own a time-machine and i went and killed my grandfather before i was born

Answer 7

Yes and no!

Answer 8

"you belong here" [ . ] read period as in statement - {(of fact)} "you belong here" [ ? ] read question - as in statement {(of doubt )} IE. you do not belong...perception ..

Answer 9

I THINK THEREFORE I NEED NOT THINK