Debate Coming Up

[Roy]

Wait, do you mean that X joules of blue light is shined on the object and it simultaneously reflects X joules and absorbs X joules? Well that would be a disproof of conservation of energy, not of the law of non-contradiction.

It would be a counter-example to the law of conservation of energy and a counter-example to the law of non-contradiction.

After all, the only reason it at first appears contradictory is that you are assuming conservation of energy.

I'm not assuming that. I'm assuming that the object is both blue and not blue, and the resulting energy problem is a measurable consequence of, and hence evidence of, the object's blue/non-blue nature. An alternative possibility is that the energy which is both reflected and no reflected is conserved, but is then in, and can be measured in, two places at once. This of course violates the law of non-contradiction too, but that's only to be expected.

The observation itself is not contradictory. Like I said, there is necessarily some other premise(s) involved in giving you an apparent contradiction.

That wasn't what you said. This is what you said: "My point is that no matter what example you try to come up with, you will find that it too is not an empirical violation of the LNC. If you think otherwise, then go ahead and try to come up with a hypothetical example of such evidence. You can't do it.". Discovering that an object is both reflecting and absorbing light would be an empirical violation of the LNC.

Roy