As a college student who studies philosophy independently, these are exceedingly helpful

This man is a great teacher.

Finally, a concise and eloquent understanding of Metaphysics. Nicely done.

I love these!!!! They have all been excellent!! Thank you!

Just found the channel today and already loving it! Thanks so much, I was looking for videos explaining the summa theologiae for a long time!

A clear and cogent explanation. Definitely food for the soul.

I love the opportunity to watch these videos and review them at various times! Thanks

Outstanding. These videos are truly incredible.

Dayum you made this a lot easier for me to understand

clear and excellent explanation and visual illustration. Thank you very much

To be or not to be? That is the question. To be and not to be. That is nonsense.

Very great philosophical explanation

Well, that deals with Schrodinger's cat! I am loving your course. He did say He is the Truth. I really cannot thank you enough for making all this freely available to us!!

Thank you!

Iluminating! Thanks!

"We all know that it is impossible for something to be and not to be at the same time in the same respect." Erwin Schrodinger would like to have a word with you Joking aside, great video. Succinct, but gets the message across.

Props to the video quality!!

Thank you, may our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!

Respect, thanks

Let us remember that St. Thomas' "Principle of Non-Contradiction", like Einstein's "Theory of Relativity", applies only to the "Observable Macro-Universe,"; but it is Contradicted and Does Not Apply to the "Micro-Universe" where a given particle "May" and "May Not" Be/Exist at the same point in the Space-Time grid.

We need to be decipline.. We must practice to be Fair...unbiased emphaty,equality ..we need to respect others right

Lately I have been given to questioning Divine Impassibility because it is possible that, though we cannot escape the law of noncontradiction as finite beings, if God is beyond the category of Being, it may not apply to God. The Bible makes for more sense if we dispense with this legacy of Greek philosophy and simply trust the Revelation, even if we can't understand it. I'm sure this won't be popular.. but I'm also sure you can see that I have positioned this argument beyond clear refutation, as it has rejected (when speaking of God) the very tool you would use for refutation.

This was a beautiful explanation of the principles of non-contradiction. I realize that this isn't a science channel, but since Aquinas understood scientific practices. It stands to reason that the principle of non-contradiction is flipped upside down with what we understand thus far about quantum mechanics. The reason why I'm saying this is because both are a clear representation of what reality is. Even Einstien couldn't and didn't want to believe what quantum mechanics was telling us. How did he put it? "Spoke actions at a distance" with respect to quantum entanglement, again I understand that Aquinas is approaching reality from a philosophical point of view, but these principles are deeply rooted in reality no matter what faith you hold to be true. The same is true with respect to quantum mechanics. So, if both are true how can they contradict one another? This is a direct quote from Wikipedia but take Schrödinger's cat for example. Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment that illustrates a paradox of quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur is a thought experiment that illustrates a paradox of quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur

Fr Brent said, I think, that Aristotle called the subject "metaphysics" but my understanding is that this label came hundreds of years later. Bill J.

BASED

Fr. Brent, O.P. Would the psychological state of ' ambivalence' be an exception to the law of non- contradiction?

I've ran into something called Intuitionist logic, which does not observe the laws of the excluded middle or double negation. Is this something worth pursuing or just a novelty?

how does the principle of non-contradiction and schrodinger's cat interact/ are they reconcilable?

Two words: quantum superposition. It's convenient and probably necessary for getting through ordinary matters that we hold to the idea of dualistic, mutually exclusive states, to describe many phenomena. Something is either a horse, or it isn't a horse, but not some intermediate condition of being. But we must recognize that some of these states are descriptive conveniences rather than strict ontological predicates. Is a horse missing one leg still a horse? How many parts can we remove before we no longer regard it as being a horse? It's a macabre example, but it is the classic example of the problem. A more modern example is the chair on which you may be sitting. It may appear to exist as a distinct object from your body, but both are mostly composed of empty space, with fairly indistinct and indeed overlapping boundaries separating them. Molecular structures maintain energy states that resist change below a certain activation threshold, so that chair and body don't seem to spontaneously dissolve into each other or react chemically. But in fact they always do to some degree. And various other forces are a work as well, such as static charge attraction and repulsion, hydrogen bonding, van see Walls force, surface adsorption, and so on. These usually don't warrant close attention, unless something goes wrong such as mosquito repellant acting as a solvent and causing the chair upholstery to dissolve on your skin. You may then still describe the chair and yourself as separate, but that claim has now become more arbitrary. Most of our ordinary intuitions, including the logical absolutes, don't correctly describe quantum phenomena. Quantum objects are correctly and accurately described by probability wave functions in which "being" is more like one or more fuzzy clouds rather than any kind of point mass. Some electron orbitals in atoms, for example, are not spherical but consist of two lobes with a plane in between of zero probability. A single electron "half-exists" (fully exists with probability 0.5) in one lobe and half in the other. It does not travel in between. Where are the laws of identity and excluded middle expressed here? Quantum superposition is another example, famously illustrated by Schrödinger's cat being both alive and not alive until measured. This clearly violates the law of non-contradiction, yet various observed phenomena require this violation to hold. But, happily for the edifice of reason, it needn't hold forever. In short, there's nothing wrong with the logical absolutes, only that they have certain identifiable limitations that usually don't intrude but should nevertheless be acknowledged just to keep the account completely honest.

What about quantum states that posses more than one property’s at the same time ie superposition? We are building quantum computers around these principles? Doesn’t this break your law ?

Great video! But how about the contradictions of quantum physics?

At the start of the video, Fr. Brent says that the PNC shows that it is possible for us to know absolute truth. Towards the end, father shows how the PNC explains how the PNC shows us that reality is self-consistent. Is this the truth father was talking about, i.e., reality is self-consistent? Second question - from what I understand, the PNC only tells us that a contradiction isn't possible - it doesn't help us with knowing which of the two contradictory statements is true. So the PNC tells us that the ball cannot be both red and not red at the same time. But the PNC cannot tell us which of the two is true. Is my understanding correct? This would mean that we would need "something else" to know which of the two statements is true right?

I struggle with non-contradiction, ever since I started paying attention o self-referential systems and Gödel's work. It seems to me as if there are two dimensions of reality. Gödel ended up cooking up a system, in his incompleteness theorems, that showm that a system could be either consistent (non-contradictory) or complete (meaning you can derive any propositions from the axioms). Most people won't even think about this durinf their lived amd the system of non-contradicion prevails but what about when we examine whole belief/formal systems (like Tomistic Christianity or Mathematics)? As I understand, truth got weakened. If we can't proof something from the axioms (since this is an axiom) shouldn't we take some things on faith (meta-axioms) and then apply non-contradiction? A logical conclusion of Gödel's theorem is that we shall not impose axioms on others via law or moral demand, but rather enter in a sort of faith-reason conundrum which seems to "work" pragmatically. This is a conundrm that is being studied by Physicist Brown at Duke University (see "as a necessary prior condition for any sort of philosophical discussion all participants need to agree on their axioms, the unprovable assumptions and methods of reasoning upon which their conclusions are ultimately based" ( webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms.php). Contemporary controversial author E Michael Jones, a thomist who has just published Logos rising, equates reason with logos. It is not clear to me the explanatuin Aquinas gives for Logos. For me, as someone who studies ecolgy and is utterly interedted in the conmectiom between Christianity & Ecology, it makes intuitive sense to distinguis ideological positions based on poorly examined propositions (like current environmentalism which tends to be anti-logos) with Ecology which pays carefum attention at the identification of relevant variables, carries out tests and tries to achieve internal coherence. Robert Ulanowicz, in his ecological metaphysics, leaves room for miracles and God's intervention and yet, it seems to be almost impossible to proof, as specific interventions can't be reproduced and tend to be time and place-specific. I'd like your take on all this. Thank you for your vids!

How does this work in relationships where there is empirical conditions that both show laws under one system of thought but not laws under one system of thought. I'll elaborate bc it is convoluted, Einsteins E=MC2 is considered true by systems of evaluation. But it is correct also when they are seen in the beings absent the motion of C^2 they are different yet the same( undifferentiated) does this not invalid the principle?

Geometry is the "study of continuous quantity". I never heard it explained like that. Very much to the point. So far I stuck to "branch of maths that studies shapes". But if geometry is that, "study of expanding quantity", Maths must also be a kind of study of quantity, right? How can general Mathematics properly be defined?

How does this apply to quantum mechanics?

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🧐 The principle of non-contradiction is a fundamental concept in metaphysics and philosophy, stating that it is impossible for something to both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. 02:20 🤔 The principle of non-contradiction applies to reality itself, emphasizing that reality is self-consistent and not contradictory, even though people may hold contradictory beliefs or perspectives. 04:12 🌟 The principle of non-contradiction serves as a foundation for understanding reality as a whole, and philosophy and metaphysics aim to explore and explain more about the nature of reality. Made with HARPA AI

Coolness.

this reminds me of schrodinger's cat!! but like the opposite (kinda)

The laws of logic are inherent to God cause God is the truth

But what about Quantum physics and superposition?

What about a banana that is in the process of ripening. It can be both yellow and green, aren't those contradictory colors at the same time?

what about quantum field theory?

I wonder if AI challenges this principle...🤔 Also, what about the Saints that bilocated? They were often existing in more than one place at a time.

Here is a philosophical critique of the video's treatment of the law of non-contradiction: - The presenter does not acknowledge that the status of the law of non-contradiction is more controversial in modern philosophy than suggested. - Paraconsistent and dialetheic logics have been developed to handle some apparent contradictions, challenging the assumption that contradictions must always indicate overall falsehood. - Referring to the law as self-evidently true begs the question. Establishing it as properly basic requires ruling out coherent challenges like dialetheism through argumentation. - The examples provided wrongly assume universal intelligibility and uninterpreted experience. But perception itself can involve conceptual interpretation. - The video suggests contradictions render discourse impossible, but paraconsistent logic shows communication can coherently continue even with occasional contradictions. - It is asserted without argument that rejecting the law leads to absurdity. But some philosophers argue accepting true contradictions is no less coherent. - The law's ontological status remains debated - whether it is an ontological principle or merely an artefact of logic systems. Overall, the video presents the law of non-contradiction as far less controversial than it is in modern philosophy. It does not address serious philosophical challenges from dialetheism and paraconsistent logic. More nuance is required on the intricacies of this debate.

the intro song sounds kinda like the futurama intro tbh

👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

Would love to have you on thought adventure podcast KZfaq channel Livestreams insya Allah

What about Schrodinger's cat?

What if you breath through your mouth but not your nose? Then you are breathing and not breathing.

As you are already aware we can while in the flesh know some however not all truths about reality as a whole. That is a paradigm not a contradiction isn't it?

Electron has entered the chat

Genuinely don't know the answer to this, but doesn't this principle break down completely at quantum level?

So the Principle of Non-Contradiction is applicable 100% within the natural law, but not always applicable to the supernatural law i.e. bi-location, Holy Trinity, Incarnation, Immaculate Conception etc.

Maybe one exception: bilocation? Padre Pio was in two places at once.

"No one would believe the detectives that the subject was both at, and not at the store at 7pm." Unless the subject was an electron.

Aritotelianism, therefore is based on an affirmation of consequent. PNC is not sufficiently reasonable. It follows from Aristotle's axioms, then he uses what he could be demonstrating as an antecedent for his metaphysics. It is not that being cannot not be at the same time. It is that "not-being" has no being. There is no being of that which is not. No instance of being is such that it's being is the being of not-being. It is not that a man cannot exist and not-exist at the same time. It is that in no time a man can have the quality of not-existing. What doesn't exist doesn't exist and therefore it cannot be predicated to have any quality. Saying, for example that "unicorns don't exist" is a way of speaking. There is a predication, therefore the subject of a predication exists, for if it didn't exists, it would be impossible to predicate about it. So saying for unicorns not to exist. Is saying in reality that unicorns exist in a way that is not in the same way than something else exists. The Anglo-Saxon tradition conflates the attribute of having a discernible mode of being, with "not existing". All due to Aritotle's dogmatic ontology of the negation of being.

He mentioned that you can not prove non contradiction such as someone is 6 ft tall and not 6 ft tall at the same time, but would not measuring the person's height proof that the person is 6 ft tall and therefore not otherwise. So is it not possible to prove the law of non contradiction?

The supernatural, is a reality, thus, the possibility of a God, is a reality.

Reality is self consistent *Until Quantum Mechanics arrives the chat*

Did you ever ask why St. Thomas A. stopped writing and dictating all these? Can someOne Help Finish The Summa Theologiae? GOD Will.

Fr. Hank Green isn't real he cant hurt u Fr. Hank Green:

I doubt this and believe it at the same time. Which brings me to my point, the human brain is the only thing that can break this law.

Is the law of non-contradiction necessarily true, or just true? I think a theist has to maintain that it is just true, not that it is necessarily true. For if it is necessarily true, then God would not be able to violate it. Yet with God all things are possible....

It's all about language. English lacks a copula for contingency. So English take "lack of alignment" for "negation of being". English uses "to be" as the only main copula. English formed mind is very limited by that constrain. One thing is being as in a form or a phenomenon. Something that is in the world. And another thing is "is" a copula. As a copula "is" means that a subject holds an attribute. It's called copula because it mates the subject and one of its attributes. Another copula is the copula that denotes contingency. "Is" when the term indicates presence of a condition. So for a man not to be in a place must not be taken as an ontologic claim for "being" in this case is refering to the ontology of man, but to his absence from a location. However the man is present somewhere else. Reality doesn not obey no principle of non-conteadiction. That is the silliest argument in the history of philosophy. It is the mind who gets stuck in a perspective from which things make sense in a way or they don't. Moral predicaments exist. There are actions that make the one who took them good and evil at the same time at the same respect. And although uncomfortable, it doesn't entail a breakage on the continum of reality.

The First Principle is GOD = GOoDness, Eternal

"We all know that it is impossible for something to be and not to be at the same time in the same respect." Jc Beall: I'm gonna stop you right there.

It is a serious mistake to confuse the metaphysics of reality with logic. Furthermore, a greater mistake to think logic has anything to do with truth. Logic is not contingent, has nothing to do with reality or the way things are. Other means of inquiry are how we determine what is true. Axioms, tautology, truism, these are entirely analytic and trivially true. That is, they are lingual, semantic. What is logically certain is only that we cannot know what is true if all we know is that an argument is valid. So, merely having a logical principle doesn't get us anywhere. The LNC isn't true of the world. It is true of how human beings think. Logic is classically the description of how an ideal mind thinks. Not being true of the world and not being able to demonstrate truth deductively is a consequence of logic being non contingent.

While I am an atheist, I would say this pertains to the debate about a god being omnipotent and the "best of possible worlds" argument. To me, being omnipotent does not mean being able to do the impossible, like making light and darkness occupy the same space. It simply means being able to do anything that is possible to do. This is also why I say that if mankind survives, we will eventually become gods.

The principle of non-contradiction is false. Take "this statement is false." It is both true and false. Also, Being is and is not an entity, for those of you familiar with Heidegger. Check out the work of Graham Priest.

Jesus is not God but he is God

I'm an atheist, as in not convinced, and I am very impressed and not not impressed with this video. I will explore the others you have. Thank you, kindly.

The principle of non-contradiction does not apply to our present "reality." For example, the U.S. Constitution states that "No person shall be a Senator...who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." At the same time, Mel Carnahan, on November 7, 2000, won election to the U.S. Senate, from Missouri, three weeks after he was dead and he no longer existed. This principle is discussed by academics but they ignore the fact that it no longer applies. Some will actually argue that Mel Carnahan "existed" because his name was on a ballot.

Playing devils advocate here(i need help beating this devil myself): Wouldn’t God being truly human then violate the principle of non-contradiction? P1. It is impossible for something to be and not be at the same time P2. Man is not God P3. Jesus was fully man Therefore, Jesus cannot be God Or change P3 to Jesus was fully God therefore Jesus cannot be man

So one can say that one cannot be a man and a woman at the same time? Good to know I will this idea against LGBTQ+ people 😅