A Non-Violent Solution?

[Abracadabra]

Besides, we can and do make decisive claims about what this other reality is not all the time. You did so yourself. did you or did you not state that this reality would not be bound by spacetime? That's making quite a decisive claim about the nature of "true" reality.

What I pointed out is the fact that we have observational scientific reasons to conclude (even using our own concepts of logic and reasoning) that there is more to reality than the mere physics of spacetime.

So even our limited knowledge of reality, suggests that this is indeed the case.

If we are going to accept observational "evidence" then we have no choice to acknowledge that even based the scientific method of inquiry we are forced to consider that the true nature of reality goes beyond what we deem to be reasonable or logical, and it certainly defies the classical laws of physics that we have come to cherish.

Ask any physicist if the quantum world can be explained using classical physics and you'll get a resounding and definite, "No."

Yet, you demand that any underlying reality must adhere to your notions of logic.

Why should the foundation of reality be dependent upon what a human brain perceives to be "logical"?

You're attempting to claim that a human brain can logically rule out something?

That very claim right there assumes that the true nature of reality must be limited to how a human brain thinks.

Even as the most passionate believer in a purely secular reality, surely you can see the fallacy of such "logic".

If you can't. Then I honestly don't know what to tell you.

Slinging personal mud between us isn't going to solve anything.

I'm sorry I even bothered to go there.

But let's face it, you are the one who is attempting to demand that I swallow your conclusions as though they represent absolute undeniable truths that cannot be refuted.

I say, "Pft".

I can, and already have, refuted you claims. They are totally standing on quicksand. You simply do not have a basis to support your claims in any absolute way.

If you believe that you do, then you are in error.

It's that simple.

And if you were taught to believe these things by a university, I would suggest going back and demanding a refund on the tuition. They taught you lies.

---

I'm curious. Did you even study logic? Did you even comprehend the fact that it starts with the law of identity, which is a corollary of axiom of existence?

You're talking about classical philosophical logic. The kind taught in philosophy departments. Those teachings are out-dated. They make classical assumptions. Those programs are also slow to keep up with modern advances in scientific knowledge.

I'm talking about mathematical logic. The kind used in the sciences. They don't start with any specific axiom. On the contrary you can build a logical formalism starting with any axioms you so desire. All that is required is that your logical system is not self-contradicting.

This is why in mathematics they can speak about 3 different types of geometries, all based on different axioms. All 3 geometries are self-consistent, but clearly not consistent with each other.

Therefore they are all valid within their own domain of applicability.

So, it's no wonder you think you can know something. You're basing your 'logic' on classical philosophical thinking. Those people still cling to the idea that 'truths' are absolute.

Those days are long gone.

Einstein showed that 'truths' are relative. What's 'truth' for you may not be 'truth' for someone else. Especially with respect to the passage of time.

There can be no such thing as an 'absolute truth' even within the fabric of spacetime.

Yet, you'd like to hold that things that you deem to be 'truth' must hold true everywhere under all imaginable situations.

You apparently subscribe to a belief in 'absolute truth'. And to make matters far worse, you even believe that you currently hold such a truth in your hand that cannot be refuted or denied by anyone.

Like I say, it's almost as silly as claiming to hold the "word of God" in your hand that cannot be denied!

Baloney.

We don't even have any rational reason to believe than any such 'absolute truths' could or should exist.

Yet, here you are demanding that we must accept that you hold an absolute truth that cannot be denied and must necessarily be applicable everywhere, even in the yet unknown regions of reality?

Give it up.

You may as well be preaching the spaghetti God.