If two mutually exclusive things can be "true" simultaneously it seems to me that neither one is true. What does it seem to you and why?

:)

Nimitz, you are correct in that neither fact cancels out the other.
~

Thank you, Désirée, you make an excellent point and I stand corrected one that half of my premise.

Instead, I offer the statements: "It is daytime" and "It is nighttime". ~

That's deep!
~

Some say Trump is a racist. Others say he is not. They cannot both be true. It depends upon perception and the intention of the observer. I say he is a racist. What say you? Thank you for your reply CMI. To be honest with you your reply is over my head but I appreciate that you shared that with us. I don't understand the connection between your response and my question. Apologies to thee. Are you back home or still traveling? Happy Monday! :)

Thank you for your reply Neelie and Happy Monday. I say Trump is a racist.  His supporters say he is not. The two statements cannot simultaneously both be true. Is/is not does not exist simultaneously. Trump might be a racist and then change. So they can be true sequentially, The assessment is entirely dependent upon the perception and the intention of the observer. How do you determine where the truth lies when subjectivity and prejudice is involved? How do you step aside from prejudice/subjectivity so you can be totally objective? One wonders about such things . If A equals B and B  equals C then A equals C. That is a logic that cannot be refuted. However everything cannot be broken down into  simple mathematical equations. If...then. It is the IF part that is often troublesome.  A may not equal B which means that B may not equal C. The whole thing falls apart. And so it goes!   )

Being a parent and being a husband are not mutually exclusive. Being a woman and being an actress are not mutually exclusive. Being a woman and being a man at the same time? Maybe in this day and age that is not mutually exclusive but in the olden days it would have been.   Trump is a racist.  Trump is not a racist.  They cannot both be true simultaneously. Is there a middle ground between is/ is not? Where would that be? Thank you for your reply Desiree and Happy Monday! :)

Hi.  We got back late Friday.  That was the best trip I have been on so far.

On the plane back I was trying to organize a paper I told you previously that I was writing on the origin of life.  In trying to explain my objections to the current thinking, I kept running into walls trying to explain current thinking.  They were, in a nutshell:  1) the energy requirement for life to perpetuate itself and
2) the requirement for evolution to produce the complex systems needed to capture and deliver that energy in the first place. It's a chicken and egg argument.  You cant have life without energy and you cant have biochemical energy without life.  

Your question forced me to clarify this in my own mind.  The two are mutually exclusive, therefore the whole hypothesis is erroneous.  Thanks. Later.

You are (or have been) a daughter and you are a mother. Not every daughter is a mother, but every mother is (or has been) someone's daughter, so the first sentence contains two mutually exclusive truths.

~

And neither one cancel the other out--as anyone who thinks like an adult could easily surmise. :-)

It seems to me you might be confused.

Being a mother and being a daughter aren't mutually exclusive at all. Being a mother is mutually inclusive with being a daughter, though.

Something like "you are a male and female" is mutually exclusive. Assuming simple MFA gendering, and not being bigendered etc.

I think, at least.

Let's go back to the question ... Can two mutually exclusive things be true at the same time?... I would think not otherwise they would not be mutually exclusive, but I'm certainly willing to listen to arguments

If they're mutually exclusive, they can't both be true. One excludes the other by nature.

Read the Pauli exclusion principle.

That's my thinking also

You forced me to think.  How dare you!  Hmm... let's see.

1. There could be no evolution without self-replication,

2. There could be self-replication without cell division

3.  There could be no cell division without energy conversion (sunlight to kinetic)

5. There could be no energy conversion without chlorophyll (or chemosynthetic compound)

6. There could be no chlorophyll without evolution.

Where does that leave us?  The whole idea that life "evolved" from non-living matter is INCORRECT.  It is six-point circular reasoning.  What other explanation can their be?

RosieG, by your own argument, if neither one is true, then both are false. Again that's not possible for mutually exclusive things.

I'm drawing on my memory of first year college logic, and I could be very, very wrong.