A Non-Violent Solution?

[genkaus]

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.

Similarly, our knowledge of consciousness suggests that it cannot exist without a spatio-temporal framework in place.

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."

:yawn:. Again with the irrelevant crap.

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

No, I argue that if the reality that is the basis of this one does not adhere to logic (not necessarily mine), then neither would this one.

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.

If reality were dependent upon how or what a human thinks, then your "spiritual" reality would indeed be the case. It is precisely because reality is independent of it that your spiritual reality can be ruled out.

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

Yes, and that is the fallacy of your 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.

Says the baboon indiscriminately disseminating his poo.

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.

Conclusions? You really don;t know what axioms mean, do you?

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

How many times do I have to tell you? Your imagination has no bearing on reality.

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 suggest you go back and demand an explanation from your parents. Ask them what they fed you that made you so irrational.

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.

We are talking about what exists and what does not, we are talking metaphysics. That is a part of philosophy. The domain applicable here is philosophy.

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.

No wonder you don't know anything. Classical philosophy is not the basis of logic, it is the product - a product based on limited understanding, no doubt, but a product nonetheless.

Incidentally, can you name one field of mathematics where the law of identity is inapplicable?

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.

I must have missed the part where Einstein said "there can be no such thing as truth".

IF there are to be any truths, relative or otherwise, logic must be applicable. FOR logic to be applicable, the axiom of existence must be assumed.

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

No. Where the axiom is inapplicable, no logic (understood by humans or otherwise) would apply and there could be no truth and no knowledge regarding it. But if you can imagine it, then by definition it is knowable. That is a contradiction.

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.

No. There is no such thing as an absolute truth.

This axiomatic statement cannot be judged either true of false, since the very concepts of truth and falsehood depends upon it. It is not true or false - it simply is. It is assumed in every statement of knowledge you make and in every statement you claim as truth, because without the assumption, there can be no such thing as truth or knowledge. There can be no rational basis for belief.

You want to believe that everything you perceive through your sense is true? Then you must accept that you are not projecting and that requires accepting that it exists independently of your perception.

You want to believe that everything you see is an illusion? Then you must accept that you are not imagining that its an illusion and then that fact must exist independently of your belief. Either way, it is inescapable.