Two Claims, Two Applications: The Law of Contradiction

Claim: the law of non-contradiction is fundamental. There is nothing higher that we could use to prove its existence, for it is already the highest law.

Response: Could we not say that time, space, and causality might not be provable but that is because they too are fundamental? I mean, how could one prove the existence of the law of causality? For whatever evidence caused us to believe or disbelieve in causality would inadvertently assume it, by the very fact that it was able to cause us to believe it. We simply have to assume causality in order to have any knowledge of the external world. For otherwise, there would be no reason to assume that the person in front of me caused my mind to perceive that there is a person in front of me, in which case any causal relation between our minds and the world breaks down, and we can know nothing about the world. If we can’t prove causality, we just have to assume it in order to even begin dealing with the world. Causality is fundamental.

(Ultimately) all argument for its reality is circular. Therefore the law of causality and the lenses of time and space are just as fundamental and just as provable (or rather, unproveable) as the law of non-contradiction. The man who denies the law of non-contradiction should be quite happy to also affirm it. And if you say that’s a contradiction he will smile and say: “So what?” It’s only the man who maintains the law that can’t understand how you can both reject it and affirm it at the same time.

Application: You can conceive of infinity or the universe popping into existence without a cause. You cannot conceive of an infinite regression of past Becoming? You can only concieve of these ideas separately. Thus the necessary contradiction will always be fundamental.
‐‐—–‐——-‐-‐————————————————————————————————————–Claim: The universe is rational and exists according to the law of non-contradiction

Response: The minute we engage the question of the origins of universe, regardless of the thing we employ to try to answer it (theology, philosophy, science), we are facing the problem of infinite regress. The idea that something has no beginning and no end (Being) and the idea that something exists that was not caused not only betrays the only categories of thought we have for understanding reality (Becoming, or cause and effect), it throws them into disarray,

Here is an example of the problem:
“Someone punches you in the face. Within the rule of cause and effect your face would fly out of the way and her fist would occupy the space where it once was. Two things can’t occupy the same space at the same time otherwise it would be a contradiction. If cause and effect didn’t apply then when she punched you that would no longer cause your face to fly out of the way, and so your face and her fist would suddenly be in the same place at the same time and in the same way. Which sounds a whole lot like a contradiction, or, at least, about as close to a contradiction as you can get in the physical world.

(Thus) if causality were not real, then practically speaking . . . not only would effects occur without causes but contradictions would occur as well.

An effect is limited by the contours of its cause. For example, a computer can only create simulations and outcomes that are within the possibilities of its pre-existent programming. In the same way, a logical world can only continue to create logical things, because an effect is limited by the nature of its cause. Like causes like… if things pop into existence out of nothing, there is no cause or pre-existent nature that dictates what the effect will be like; no laws or logical programming that guided their coming into being, for they literally came out of nothing. Why then couldn’t contradictions or infinites pop into existence uncaused out of nothing? If there is no logical womb from which effects derive, then what manner of monsters may come roaring out?”

Application: The very idea that Being (something that wasn’t caused) exists means that Becomimg (cause and effect) is a contradiction. So often though we reason from Becoming as a way to ignore the problem of Being and call that rationality or reason. We establish the rules of the game based on an irrational assumption on the basis that reason should not appeal to irrational claims. This is at the root of most of our disputes about matters of Being. We assume Being to be true all the time, but we reason as though it doesn’t exist
(borrowing from JD Lyonhart)