Skip to main content
spelling
Source Link
Frank Hubeny
  • 19.8k
  • 7
  • 32
  • 100

I am of the opinion that the principal of bivalence is overly simplistic and the B theory of time is nonsencicalnonsensical (of course, I'm currently throwing my lot in with the loop quantum gravity folks).

In reality, the truth value of the statement is in a superposition of both true and false. Or, if you'd rather think about it classically, the statment's truth value has a certain probability of being true or false.

I am of the opinion that the principal of bivalence is overly simplistic and the B theory of time is nonsencical (of course, I'm currently throwing my lot in with the loop quantum gravity folks).

In reality, the truth value of the statement is in a superposition of both true and false. Or, if you'd rather think about it classically, the statment's truth value has a certain probability of being true or false.

I am of the opinion that the principal of bivalence is overly simplistic and the B theory of time is nonsensical (of course, I'm currently throwing my lot in with the loop quantum gravity folks).

In reality, the truth value of the statement is in a superposition of both true and false. Or, if you'd rather think about it classically, the statment's truth value has a certain probability of being true or false.

Source Link
Thor
  • 248
  • 1
  • 6

I am of the opinion that the principal of bivalence is overly simplistic and the B theory of time is nonsencical (of course, I'm currently throwing my lot in with the loop quantum gravity folks).

In reality, the truth value of the statement is in a superposition of both true and false. Or, if you'd rather think about it classically, the statment's truth value has a certain probability of being true or false.