> First point: this is why I wrote the logical system of Euclidean geometry. Propositions in that language, and the proofs therein, have not changed. The poin

> First point: this is why I wrote the logical system of Euclidean geometry. Propositions in that language, and the proofs therein, have not changed. The point was that the axioms we used changed. Read further back up the thread. You're off track. > Second point: That is most definitely what empiricism is. Moreover, I have just given you a set of epistemological beliefs. It's a set with a single element, and it in fact characterizes empiricism. I don't know what else to tell you. No, please take an introduction to philosophy. Empericism is an epistemology, it has nothing to do with what exists which is an ontology. Ffs open Wikipedia or something. This is embarrassing Dunning-Kruger effect here.