4 ms·

> To say that there is no reality is self-refuting If there is no reality, why must logic persist? (I.e. that there is such a thing as truth, statements can be

by lawpoop 11y ago

> To say that there is no reality is self-refuting If there is no reality, why must logic persist? (I.e. that there is such a thing as truth, statements can be true or false, statements can be contradictory and therefore false, etc). If we can throw out reality, why not logic along with it? Doesn't it actually have to leave along with reality? If there "truly" is no reality, there is no logic, either, since logic is part of reality. Right?

abc_lisper 11y ago
Second theorem of Godel's Incompleteness?
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> If there "truly" is no reality, there is no logic, either, since logic is part of reality. Right? But see, you're making a logical argument there. If your position was right, then you can't do that... The only way you can say that there is no reality is by making a statement that you claim is true about reality. The only way you have argued that there is no logic is on the basis of a logical argument.
- lawpoop 11y ago
  OTOH, if there is no reality and thus no logic, it doesn't matter if I'm using logic to refute logic; whatever contradiction it's thought to be doesn't actually exist. In other words, we're attributing a truth-and-falsehood finding property to logic that it doesn't actually posses. So in the grand sense, it's meaningless, whatever it is we think we're getting from logic. It's like saying the Iraqi explosive detecting wand actually detects explosive. It's a phony tool, it doesn't work, but we trick ourselves into believing that it does.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > OTOH, if there is no reality and thus no logic, it doesn't matter if I'm using logic to refute logic; whatever contradiction it's thought to be doesn't actually exist. True. Your position logically refutes itself, but if logic is meaningless, that doesn't matter. But your argument sure doesn't give me any reason to believe it. You've created something that cannot be refuted, but that doesn't make it useful, sane, or convincing. If you accept this idea, then all logical discourse (or even all logical thought) is worthless, and is no different than illogic. Do you really think that's the world we live in? Do you really want it to be?
    - lawpoop 11y ago
      If that is the world we live in, we have no way to tell, because our experience still looks like 'this' world. And, if it is the world we live in, I guess I don't want it to be, since I think this reality could be a lot better.
cscurmudgeon 11y ago
Lol. You are using logic to refute logic. :D Not a sane choice.

by lawpoop 11y ago

abc_lisper 11y ago

Second theorem of Godel's Incompleteness?

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

> If there "truly" is no reality, there is no logic, either, since logic is part of reality. Right? But see, you're making a logical argument there. If your position was right, then you can't do that... The only way you can say that there is no reality is by making a statement that you claim is true about reality. The only way you have argued that there is no logic is on the basis of a logical argument.

lawpoop 11y ago
OTOH, if there is no reality and thus no logic, it doesn't matter if I'm using logic to refute logic; whatever contradiction it's thought to be doesn't actually exist. In other words, we're attributing a truth-and-falsehood finding property to logic that it doesn't actually posses. So in the grand sense, it's meaningless, whatever it is we think we're getting from logic. It's like saying the Iraqi explosive detecting wand actually detects explosive. It's a phony tool, it doesn't work, but we trick ourselves into believing that it does.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > OTOH, if there is no reality and thus no logic, it doesn't matter if I'm using logic to refute logic; whatever contradiction it's thought to be doesn't actually exist. True. Your position logically refutes itself, but if logic is meaningless, that doesn't matter. But your argument sure doesn't give me any reason to believe it. You've created something that cannot be refuted, but that doesn't make it useful, sane, or convincing. If you accept this idea, then all logical discourse (or even all logical thought) is worthless, and is no different than illogic. Do you really think that's the world we live in? Do you really want it to be?
  - lawpoop 11y ago
    If that is the world we live in, we have no way to tell, because our experience still looks like 'this' world. And, if it is the world we live in, I guess I don't want it to be, since I think this reality could be a lot better.

cscurmudgeon 11y ago

Lol. You are using logic to refute logic. :D Not a sane choice.