Do opposites exist?

[Spiritus_Mundi]

No no, 2 is not opposite -1, opposite doesn’t apply. There is some quality of two that is opposite of the corresponding quality of negative one.

I was simply preserving your usage, which seemed to match your stated position that the relationship determined from our restricted context has application in our broader, original context. You do remember saying we’ve created a context where 2 is opposite to 3, right?

You brought context into it, now you want to remove it?

Far from it. What I want is a context for this discussion in which we are consistent in our use of terms/concepts.

the opposite test. That is what XOR is for.

That is why I brought it up. I do not agree with you that XOR and opposite are equivalent relations, but that is the structure your argument implied. It made your inclusion of an “additive inverse-like” test seem strange.

is it useful

1. I feel it is. Contrasting elements is a useful property. I don’t know what you expect from me here.

I thought I was clear. The relationship you have described in indistinguishable from “not identical”. Is having a relationship of “different” is useful? you say yes, and I agree.

is it intuitive for "opposite"
2) I would say so. That’s what I mean by opposite in a strict sense. Even in a weak sense, where I say “that’s the opposite of what you said” or some such…there clearly isn’t a mutually annihilating sentence, but there are elements/properties of each sentence that are diametrically opposite. Honestly, I think this is what everyone means when they say “opposite.”

I disagree strongly with this, mostly because the “diametric” criterion you reference in your answer is absent from your argument. Your method allows any membership operation to be listed as a “quality” inherent in the originial context. This allows literally any difference between two objects to be framed as a dichotomy and thus creates an “opposite” relationship, under some context, for any two objects. It also, as in your odd/even case, allows for an infinite number of objects to be “opposite” any given object under a your restricted context.

To illustrate with your example of statements:
Dogs are canines.
Non-dogs are canines.

Dogs are canines.
Dogs are not canines.

Both of those pairs meet your criteria for opposite under the appropriate context. But only one pair meets the “diametrical” quality of an expected opposite relationship. In this simple case, it reflects (or is illustrated by) the truth tables for each pair.

universality
3) Can I guarantee the existence of an opposite between any two objects in any context? I think I addressed that one: no, I don’t think I can, but I’m still trying anyway.

that wasn’t what I was trying to ask. In fact, under your definition it seems unavoidable that any two objects will be “opposites” under the appropriate context. What I was attempting to ask was: does you method of reduction apply upward to more general contexts. Does it, in fact, tell us anything about contexts broader than a single dichotomous quality?

What worries me is what sort of “contexts” you are considering . . .

None, in particular. You have made claims for applicability to general contexts. I am trying to determine whether those claims can be justified. In this case, it is not I who has framed a discussion toward an “unusual” context, it is you. So far, your argument is restricted to the case of a context in which only a single quality (subject to dichotomous evaluation) is considered.

Indeed, buried in “different” is “opposite.” I don’t doubt that there are times when “differentness” is all that is necessary to form a conclusion.

I agree that difference is implied by opposite. I do not agree that the converse is true.

If you use “not a member of” or “not possessing the quality of” this becomes transparent that in any two objects there exists a contextual dichotomy in comparing the two. This is how “different” becomes “opposite” and thus, as you hint, becomes useless (I don’t think it becomes useless, just too broad).

Yet the examples you have chose rely implicitely upon the “not posessing quality of”. “Odd” means “not divisible by two without remainder”. Quality A “different from” quality B means “B does not posess the same evaluation as A”.

And, yes I think it is useless to define opposite to be indistinguishable from different. They are not natural synonyms.

comparing the red ball to the blue ball. They are different in color, and far enough down the line one can construct (though you don’t seem to think so) a dichotomy

Your parenthetical comment is, in fact, the opposite of my position. You can indeed reduce the qualities red and blue to a dichotomy by framing the appropriate context. The points I disagree with are:

1. this relationship merits the label “opposite”.
2. this relationship holds meaning in a broader (more general) context.

[erislover]

I’ve been thinking about this for some time, and I think I’ve been sidetracked from my original point.

Do opposites exist? Yes. What are opposites? Dichotomies. Are dichotomies always A/~A? No. Dichotomies are always either/or. In some cases this amounts to a A/~A, but not always. I would call “true” opposites as derivable A/~A pairs.

Consider my roommate who, about two weeks ago, was considerably fed up with his job. He said to his boss, “What is more likely: you giving me a two dollar an hour raise or me quitting?” These are normally not opposites in the A/~A sense, but there is a contextual dichotomy in an either/or sense. Because it is either/or we are (if we are the boss) faced with choosing between two things which are contextually opposed.

Indeed opposites depend on context. I maintain that there is always a context which can be created to make something opposite. It isn’t the usefulness of the oppositeness, but of the context that matters.

If we are merely discussing a red ball and a blue ball we are somewhat perplexed at the uselessness of creating an opposite context. It isn’t that we cannot select a context, it is that the context is potentially useless.

[Ammurit]

This sounds rather Taoist to me. I do believe that opposites exist. The symbol of Taoism, the yin/yang, shows that opposits are necessary for anything to exist. One cannot exist without the other, and in fact, opposites define each other. There is no light without darkness, no good without evil, and yes, opposites do compliment each other. I don’t know if any of this makes sense, perhaps someone more versed in Taoism can shed light on this matter.

[erislover]

I don’t know about the yin-yang (we Discordians have the hodge-podge) but I would question that metaphysical interpretation of existence.

If opposites are required for existence then, as kabbes’ woman would say, they don’t “really” exist. They cannot be independant, no? Inside every yin is a yang, all the way down to infinity.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

arl

Do opposites exist? Yes. What are opposites? Dichotomies. Are dichotomies always A/~A? No. Dichotomies are always either/or. In some cases this amounts to a A/~A, but not always. I would call “true” opposites as derivable A/~A pairs.

Can you tell me in exactly what way A/~A pairs, under your system, differ from other dichotomies?

(1)Indeed opposites depend on context. (2)I maintain that there is always a context which can be created to make something opposite. (3)It isn’t the usefulness of the oppositeness, but of the context that matters.

(1) I agree.
(2) I agree that it is possible to construct a context in which any two non-identical objects can be characterized by a dichotomy. I am not yet convinced that this warrants the use of the label “opposite”.
(3) Well, usefulness itself is a term reliant upon context. I agree in general, though I think deciding the usefulness of the process of defining such a relationship is more interesting than whether any particular restricted context is useful.

Ammurit
Yin and yang form an interesting philosophical construct, but I have problem accepting “opposing forces” as the controlling metaphor of the Universe based upon poetic resonance. What is the yin-yang balance of blue-green algae? Does “red” contain more yang than “pepper”? If a melody is purely yin, can it be heard by a listener that is purely yang? Or, if opposites are required for identification, is it unhead by the listener that is also purely yin (no contrast)?

Personally, I have never agreed with the poetic concept that “opposite” are required for definition. I see definitions residing in boundaries, transitions, borders, etc. There is no dark without light? Fine. Is there blue without green? Is there home without motion?