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.