Well, I constructed the question that way for a number of reasons:

Well, I constructed the question that way for a number of reasons:

a) our current fascination with computer modelling of everything. [“it’s all math” / “it’s all algorithms”]
b) our current obsession with logic-as-fundamental
c) our current obsession with linear cause-effect
d) our analogizing EVERYTHING complicated to computer metaphors generally.
e) a common hot-button reaction to the mere mention of the word “God” (so much so that I avoid using the word most of the time – people fall right into their scripts).

and… I think that’s what I wanted to find out: Squish them together. Put it out there. See what happens.

I _don’t_ see logic as fundamental. Nor do I see perfections in anything really. I don’t see mathematics as a basis for reality – like with logic, it’s a nice modelling tool that’s effective, but effectiveness does not equal truth – it equals effectiveness.

So, that’s the ‘gist’ of it. I wanted to see if anybody would follow their normal scripts on hot-button topics. I wanted to see what creative, original thinking might emerge and I wanted the challenges of trying to understand other people’s points of view and reconcile them with my own, whatever that may be.

==

Yes. They are all of the time. Just look around you. Contradictions are the norm in life, not logical resolutions.

==

Consider the fundamental uniqueness of things. These patterns we discover are tendencies. But they’re sloppy. Imprecise. When they work it’s under tightly controlled circumstances.

==

You give me a thought experiment. A question about a square.

Ok, what’s the constraints?

Problem: squares don’t exist. So one constraint is that I must work with the assumption that they do. Where do they exist? Platonic realm? There is no platonic realm. Squares are fictional. Can you see the issue?

==

You have thing you ascribe as Universal truths. Laws. They can’t be violated. If I violate these laws, I cannot form a proof. I must believe in a Platonic realm that cannot be empirically verified in order to work with this thought experiment. I don’t believe it exists.

You have your rules set ahead of time. Fixed for you. They’re platonic. No contradictions allowed by default. How can I prove a contradiction using a system that allows for no contradictions? I can’t because the laws you use will always come first and they don’t allow for them.

In short, what’s called a logic trap.

==

This is the system you’re using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-world_assumption – here is how I see it:

You can know what you know. But you don’t know what’s outside of what you know.

If your system operates with a closed world assumption, it will be a complete world unto itself, but it will not encompass everything.

It can’t. It will always be limited. Useful? yes. Limited? Definitely.

==

I can’t say much about that but I’ll speak for myself, such as self may or may not be – my will ignores most of everything that comes at me. Sensory overload. I think on another discussion, I appear to be either/both/neither/other on the autistic spectrum or a nice sociopath, except sociopathy is outdated. Even nothing isn’t conclusive.

==

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− five = 2

Leave a Reply