Logical negation, sure. As we also discussed, it is nonsensical to process some concepts through the logic algorithm. Thus we have reached the end of the relevant application of logic as we move towards a holistic expression of consciousness. Without presuming such and such distinctions, there is no ability to compare, therefore no ability to distinguish between “logical” and “illogical”.
I took a look at the wiki for the incompleteness theorem, not sure how you wanted to incorporate it inot your argument. If anything, it seems to support the limited ability of algorithms to prove axioms.
Could you elaborate on this? I find the concept of “acting without acting” very interesting, and something I find myself struggling to understand.
Jackson, it’s not cowardice that prevents you. It’s the wisdom of millions of years of evolution and natural selection. The tools this wisdom has given you are there for a reason, so don’t look down on them and don’t be afraid to use them. Your only problem is lack of humility towards the things/processes about which you can’t possibly ever even know that you don’t know.
Same ends. Your DNA could only accumulate this wisdom (the tools at your perusal today) through your ancestor’s survival and procreation. Finally, even in your particular case, survival/existence is a necessary precondition to understanding (ultimate or otherwise). Nothingness/non-existence could only be contemplated by an existing entity. Zero is not some special quantity that is more “ultimate” than, say, 17. It’s simply a non-quantity.
Be humbled by what you don’t know that you don’t know, and just let it be. When handed lemons, say ‘thank you’ and make lemonade. When handed reason, say ‘thank you’ and use logic.
This will be somewhat difficult to respond to everything, so forgive me if I miss something you thought important. I will attempt to leave my quotes of you only to where they are neccessary to understand my response. I don’t want to spam the page with a big “quote war” (for lack of a better term than war).
QM poses real problems for understanding in general. So of course it poses probelms for human behavior.
Ultimate veto power can have leverage over the non-creation of a contract. It has very little leverage over the direction those negotiations take. The proverbial man in the desert dying of thirst must, by necessity, accept whatever terms the man with water throws out. Cake or death is so biased of a choice, as to not be one at all. It’s a choice; one in which there is, for all intents and purposes, one answer.
peter and paul have no business interfering with my business beyond their efforts to make sure that the contracts between myself and the slaves adhere to all libertarian requirements, meaning in this case the contract must contain an escape clause among other things.
Your begging the question here. Peter and Paul have every rigth to anything they want. Nature has no concept of “should.” As the dude said: It’s just… like.. your opinion, man." I have ethical choices I oppose, but I realize that it is just my opinion, and if I want to make it normative, I must convince others to agree with me.
Additionally, socialization of costs requires force, fraud, or consent among the entire group who bears the costs. This is why in a free society, businesses cannot socialize costs among the population at large.
Business cannot engage in fraud, and buy off judges to support them legally? That is how I dismiss your dismissal of socialization. People are smart, and figure out ways to do things; one of those is creating externalities.
Your proposal that poverty is entirely created by “programs that punish production and reward need” seems absurd to me, as poverty is far older than welfare. Poverty is, in my view, created by putting up of proverbial fences/borders that disallow the natural equillibrium to support the population. It creates abundance for some, at the cost of stability for all. This class of people (the real producer class. It’s absurd to call ownership that. Ownership doesn’t create anything, labor does.) arises because their class opposition legalizes their own claim to property with force, and beats the “have-nots” into submission.
I also don’t see how I am disincentivising production. My goal is to make the workplace democratic. All the same decisions can be made, by the vote of everyone involved, rather than the monopoly power of the arbitrary “owner.” I may support welfare/charity. But it is not a main focal point of my political philosophy; power over one’s own life is.
you propose to exchange the opportunity to build your wealth through peaceful, voluntary action for the opportunity to sit around on subsidized idleness until someone else builds a decent pile of wealth, and then seize that wealth by force
Total red-herring here. Again, you assume I’m a Democrat or American Liberal.
Hello, Laotzu of Zinn, I believe I asked you for evidence of schrodinger’s cat. Here is an extended quote from your second link:
Translation: qm says everything is crazy and reality doesnt make sense! But if we listen to kurt godel, and know that any system has true propositions that are inherently unverifiable, then everything makes sense, we just accept the fact that we cannot know everything about a particle (cf heisenberg). This is frustrating! We scientists do not like it when other scientists question us on how we select data to fit theories. Often our schemes for parsing data are post hoc. This is the notorious measurement problem. And another long quote:
so if we only rely on real, verifiable measurements that we know other scientists will accept, there is no logical problem. Hrmph. As for schrodinger’s cat itself, if you read the wiki article you linked, you will see that the thought experiment was designed to show the absurdity of a particular school of thought. It hasnt been proven, or demonstrated and there is no evidence to post. A=A, always and forevar. If you feel otherwise, please do not hesitate to posit an argument.
Then it should not be hard to identify a few of those problems.
Yes, they can refuse to negotiate based on any single term of any contract. Either party. Its completely voluntary, and completely free. That means that negotiations cannot move in a direction that is unfavorable to either party. They either stalemate, move forward, or terminate.
Not if those terms are worth more to him than his values. Morals, dignity, survival with honor. But yes, I agree that people who are caught in the desert with no water tend to have…weak negotiating positions. If you ask me, they are lucky to come across anyone at all out there with water for sale! But you would have a responsible elder deplete the supply of water that his tribe has carefully preserved for someone who is not only foolish enough to go some place where he has no business going alone with no water, but also inconsiderate enough to feel entitled to the means by which someone wiser than himself intends to make the same perilous journey. Sweet.
are you a buddhist or is that just a cool handle?
could you please explain how, one second, you can be all “life is sacred and no one should die ever, no matter how lazy or foolish!” but then when someone simply tells you to mind your own business instead of someone else’s you want to be like “human rights are lies told by our parents just like the easter bunny and bedtime”?!?!?
Or did I misunderstand the scenario? Is peter the komissar?
well you are not being very convincing right now. The truth is that morality is natural among humans, we are just also naturally bad. Thats why even amoralist communists like yourself get OUTRAGED about THOSE POOR WORKERS when you really ought to care only about yourself and your kin, if you were truly amoral.
no, in a private law society, business cannot engage in fraud and buy off judges to support them legally. That would require a monopoly on law and is only possible with a state. And that is how I dismiss your counterargument. People are smart, and we can figure out how to privatize the courts/police, meaning competition in law enforcement and ajudication would bring about universal rule of law. each private court would handle externalities (when those cases were brought to them), but much more efficiently and fairly, because without a good track record they would go out of business.
I did not say “poverty.” it is disingenuous for you to slide that in there, as you admitted you are a wealth relativist so in your opinion we will always have poverty unless everyone is equally poor, at which point no one would be poor; and I specifically referred to a class of people who do not have anything and do not believe they have to work for anything. You, on the other hand, appear to think that a person who works in a factory and lives paycheck to paycheck is no different than someone who lives in public housing projects and collects a welfare check. Is there a significant economic difference, in your opinion?
the “natural equilibrium” did not support anything. If your idea of h/g tribes includes that, in general terms, they spent less time working or had more calories available for things like music, than modern ag society, you are sadly mistaken. Furthermore, how can you interpret everything through the primal lens and ignore the concept of exclusive (as it pertains to other individuals of the same species) territory? Also, I think you have no idea how scarce calories and protein were, for human beings, before agrev. I share your nostalgia for what once was but I prefer to learn lessons from history and move forward, rather then remain mired in the past.
in an economic sense, ownership and use are indistinguishable. The producer class is made up of owners and workers. It seems to me that you think these production goods simply appear. They only exist because other people have the wealth to afford them. Now ask yourself why you would save your pennies for years to get a lathe, and then go to work on the lathe, when you could pay someone to work the lathe while you work the saw, and make even more money?
thats why we get rid of the state. You have yet to suggest how ancom would work in anarchy proper.
yes, you have a totally unjustified democracy fetish. But if businesses produced more goods with democratic workplaces, it would happen in a free market. In ancap, you can have a democratic workplace if you want. You simply cannot legally force me to allow my workers to vote on how many hours they work, or what responsibilities go to what positions, and so forth.
however, you disincentivize production when you punish production (legally reposessing a privately-owned factory) and reward idleness (paying people according to “what they need to survive” not what they produce). Who would want to go to the effort of building a factory and assembling a workforce if they didnt get to enjoy the fruits of their labor? And who would want to work harder, or make more widgets, if it didnt get them any more money? And if one person got sick, or “lost their wallet,” they got paid more, do you really think that policy would not be abused?
so if a customer calls and orders 50,000 widgets, the guy who spent his whole life in the widget industry, has invented the double widget, and spent his whole life savings building a widget factory and assembling a small army of widget-makers, that guy is less qualified to make the decision, than the collective wisdom of the entire workforce on an up or down vote? Is that your claim?
ok then why is everone subject to the will of the majority? Thats disempowering for both. The minority doesnt get what they want, and the majority still has to wait for the formality of the election to act on their desires.
I most certainly did not. I was referring to ancap vs ancom and I gathered your positions from posts you have made. Please enlighten me as to any misapprehensions.
Comrade, you need to work on that formatting. It’s hard to tell where my words end and your begin. You could also work on the whole “I’m going to make up my opponents position for him” and the whole anger thing. But w/e…
I’m not going to comment on the QM thing because, with the bad formatting and your angry rant, I really am not sure what you are trying to say… scientists are liars and cooks? Is that it? Is it kind-of like a “how do magnets work” kind-of thing? Idk…
Yes, they can refuse to negotiate based on any single term of any contract. Either party. Its completely voluntary, and completely free. That means that negotiations cannot move in a direction that is unfavorable to either party. They either stalemate, move forward, or terminate
Except that whole “cake or death” aspect of it. Do you agree with me that the less you have to offer, the more skewed the negotiations are in favor of the other person?
But you would have a responsible elder deplete the supply of water that his tribe has carefully preserved for someone who is not only foolish enough to go some place where he has no business going alone with no water, but also inconsiderate enough to feel entitled to the means by which someone wiser than himself intends to make the same perilous journey.
No. I’m not saying anything normative about the man in the desert. It was an analogy to show how sometimes a choice isn’t really much of a choice at all. What I will say tho, is that we shouldn’t be surprised if the man w/ water attempts to strong-hand the negotiations in his favor, and the thirsty man just kills him and takes the water. I don’t advocate that kind of action… but you get what’s coming to you.
are you a buddhist or is that just a cool handle? mind your own business instead of someone else’s you want to be like “human rights are lies told by our parents just like the easter bunny and bedtime”?!?!?
well you are not being very convincing right now. The truth is that morality is natural among humans, we are just also naturally bad.
What and who’s morality? Ya, everyone has a moral system they believe in. Not any of them are the same as anyone else’s.
Thats why even amoralist communists like yourself get OUTRAGED about THOSE POOR WORKERS when you really ought to care only about yourself and your kin, if you were truly amoral.
You must be talking to someone else… ? I have a set of morals, and attempt to follow them strongly.
no, in a private law society, business cannot engage in fraud and buy off judges to support them legally. That would require a monopoly on law and is only possible with a state.
People are smart, and we can figure out how to privatize the courts/police, meaning competition in law enforcement and ajudication would bring about universal rule of law. each private court would handle externalities (when those cases were brought to them), but much more efficiently and fairly, because without a good track record they would go out of business.
A good track record according to the judgements of the monied interests…
I did not say “poverty.” it is disingenuous for you to slide that in there
I apologize if I took you out of context, but if we weren’t talking about poverty… then what were we talking about?
and I specifically referred to a class of people who do not have anything and do not believe they have to work for anything.
.What is that, like 2% of the population? Most people are all about that whole “work hard and personal responsiblity” culture.. and rightly so, even if for all the wrong reasons. (I cannot stand when people are complaining about leftists by saying “I work hard as hell and I’m still broke!” Think about that dude… just think about it for a second…)
If that’s who you were referring to, we’re referring to entirely different people. Those are a small externality in my philosophy; to you they are the mainstay..?
You, on the other hand, appear to think that a person who works in a factory and lives paycheck to paycheck is no different than someone who lives in public housing projects and collects a welfare check. Is there a significant economic difference, in your opinion?
Well ya… one has a job and the other doesn’t! Who wouldn’t recognize a significant economic difference there?
But, on the other hand… they both have relatively nothing to offer the market except their labor power. As such, they are both members of the working class. One serves as a cog in the wheel of capitalist development, the other as a boogeyman to scare the poor workers into obedience.
the “natural equilibrium” did not support anything. If your idea of h/g tribes includes that, in general terms, they spent less time working or had more calories available for things like music, than modern ag society, you are sadly mistaken.
Ya, it did. That’s what natural equilibrium works. If there’s not enough to go around, somebody’s going to die. I don’t see why you would think I am advocating this. I’m just pointing out a fact of nature.
They didn’t spend less time working? Again, I’m not here to glorify or advocate primitivism. But the claim that h/g’s didn’t work less seems opposite to what I learned getting my anthroplogy degree. … oh wait, I see the qualifier now “modern agricultural society.” Ya, it’s way different now. But I would posit that most people work 8hrs+ a day, and as such most people work more.
in an economic sense, ownership and use are indistinguishable.
And what about renters and wage laborers? They both use things they don’t own. Or, do they “economically” own them, even if not legally? Because that sounds like socialism to me; people having possession of control but not formal ownership.
It seems to me that you think these production goods simply appear. They only exist because other people have the wealth to afford them. Now ask yourself why you would save your pennies for years to get a lathe, and then go to work on the lathe, when you could pay someone to work the lathe while you work the saw, and make even more money?
I… wouldn’t? You must be talking to someone else, because I have no problem with the division of labor.
What I would do is save up to get a lathe, hire someone to work it, while I work the saw, and give him a distinguishable say over the distribution of profits.
thats why we get rid of the state. You have yet to suggest how ancom would work in anarchy proper
I didn’t realize I had to lay out my entire political philosophy for you here
I generally tend to not focus upon my proscriptions for the future. Socialism will grow organically through the actions of the working class, or it will be imposed. If imposed, it is unnatural and will fail. I will lay out how I think it will look; but I am not the totality of the working class, and it’s just my opinion.
But if businesses produced more goods with democratic workplaces, it would happen in a free market. In ancap, you can have a democratic workplace if you want. You simply cannot legally force me to allow my workers to vote on how many hours they work, or what responsibilities go to what positions, and so forth.
It does happen. There is sufficient evidence that co-ops are more stable, less susceptible to economic collapse, and offer higher wages, generally. Unfortunately, they offer less to the ruling class (ownership/investment) than traditional businesses, which significantly slows their ability to become the dominant business structure… currently. This situation is likely to change as capitalism evolves tho.
I didn’t realize I advocated legally forcing you into a co-op, tho… you must be talking to someone else? I have said I would prefer a society where monopoly power over resources is not legally enforced (private property). And I have said there are certain situations where I would support the siezure of a factory. But, again, I didn’t realize I advocated forcing you into a co-op…
however, you disincentivize production when you punish production (legally reposessing a privately-owned factory)
Banks punish production when they foreclose on a business that can’t pay its bills?
and reward idleness (paying people according to “what they need to survive” not what they produce).
Again, welfare is a very small portion of my outlook… and something I would rather we do without. But I would be a hypocrite to suggest that welfare cannot work. It worked for me and my family, and millons of others. If you are against welfare because of productive issues, rather than moral ones, than you must be against charity as well, for the same reason. Both are redistributing wealth to the so-called underproductive.
Who would want to go to the effort of building a factory and assembling a workforce if they didnt get to enjoy the fruits of their labor? And who would want to work harder, or make more widgets, if it didnt get them any more money?
Again.. you must be talking to someone else? These are exactly what I am advocating; people enjoying the fruits of their labor, and making more money for working harder. What you seem to be suggesting is that a capitalist creates the materials, ships them to the land, clears the land and makes it ready for production, builds the factory, and attracts new labor all by himself.
Once I was discussing with an aquaintance about monarchy. He was asked, by another poster, “what value does a king bring.” The capitalist’s response was “he defends the land from invaders.” I responded, “he did that all by himself? What, is he Goku?!” lol
so if a customer calls and orders 50,000 widgets, the guy who spent his whole life in the widget industry, has invented the double widget, and spent his whole life savings building a widget factory and assembling a small army of widget-makers, that guy is less qualified to make the decision, than the collective wisdom of the entire workforce on an up or down vote? Is that your claim?
Why would that be my claim? It has nothing do with qualifications, and everything to do with imposing one’s monopoly power. I mean, if the so-called experts are always and inherently the best at making decisions… why not just have a technocratic dictatorship?
ok then why is everone subject to the will of the majority? Thats disempowering for both. The minority doesnt get what they want, and the majority still has to wait for the formality of the election to act on their desires.
What is this… I don’t even…
In a non-democratic system, the decision just happens; period. The two wolves just eat the sheep, end of story. In a democratic system the sheep at least gets a vote, and the possibility to argue for a quick and painless death.
It’s interesting that Schrodinger’s cat has become the premier argument for the Copenhegan interpretation when it’s initial formulation was a reductio ad absurdum of that way of interpreting QM.
EDIT: Also, I’m not so sure that all this hocus pocus being postulated as being true from the Copenhegan interpretation is accurate. The Copenhegan interpetation talks about mathematical inferences we can make about the states of certain quantum objects, but it says nothing about physical inference. It seems to me that saying Schrodingers cat is alive and dead is actually false, since “alive” and “dead” correspond to collapsed states which is categorically different from the unobserved state. Essentially, saying an uncollapsed state is simultaneously two discrete collapsed states seems illogical.
I may not have made this clear, but I reject the theory of limitations on logic. I believe that symbolic contradictions are possible and sometimes useful, and physical contradictions are made impossible by the arrow of time. This is because, even if you show me an apple that is sweet one minute, and sour the next, I can posit “flavor change over time” as a characteristic of that apple, and A=A. I am sorry I must have missed the example we discussed.
you mean “limited ability of algorithms to prove statements.” axioms are never proven, because they are starting points from which everything else is proven.
the relevant point about godel is that he establishes the limits of logic and language in much more rigorous terms than anyone else I am aware of. It is relevant because logic doesnt fall short because contradictions exist, logic falls short because plenty of important facts in any system are unprovable.
Have you ever heard it said that people progress through four stages of skill? Unconscious incompetence, conscious incompetence, conscious competence, and unconscious competence. First we dont know how to perform a task, and we dont even know that such a thing needs to be done. Then we know about it, and have ideas about how to do it, yet we are simply not skilled. We focus on the task at hand and perform poorly. Soon, however, competence is achieved and we can pay attention to the task and perform it with skill. Eventually, the task becomes “second nature” and we can perform it competently without thinking about it.
basically, any part of life, including all of life itself, can be broadly defined as a skill. The process happens naturally, but as life is complicated and these broad collections of individual acts require vastly different thought processes, modern humans have great difficulty attaining unconscious competence at the task of life. You can contrast this with a beast in the wild. The beast is unconsciously competent at the processes that sustain life. Basically, you have to be mindful enough to apprehend the causal processes of your environment, and apprehend their effects on your long-term satisfaction.
for the record, I wasnt angry. however, this is the second time you have supported one of your claims by referring to (an) article(s) that doesnt appear to support your claim. It is a little bit frustrating to have to consult a third party, only to find out that you were wrong after all. As for “I’m going to make up my opponents position for him” you are more than welcome to correct my misapprehensions whenever you find them. I think your reluctance to share your own position is revealing…
Suit yourself. Disproving the identity axiom was your baby anyway, I dont care if it dies.
not really. If you dont have much to offer, then even negotiating at all is kind of a win.
if you are trying to suggest that power differentials exist in real life, congratulations. What is your point, that people have a right to favorable negotiation conditions?
Imminent death, or short-term survival. Seems like a pretty significant choice to me. Are you suggesting that because he dies in the end, it really doesnt matter what he chooses?
why, exactly, do you think that the guy with the water would find it necessary to strong-arm a guy dying of thirst?
are you suggesting that no one has ever agreed on morals?
ok, how are your morals any different from your music preferences? What grounds would you use to persuade someone to your moral viewpoint?
I am quite certain you do not understand the terms “legal” and “private law society.”
a good track record according to the judgments of the consumers. It does little good for monied interests to support biased courts in ancap because people just wont use those courts. This is why we support removal of the monopoly on arbitration.
I find little utility in discussing your notion of poverty, where the only world without poor people is a world where everyone has the same stuff. You referred to a class of people “with nothing to offer.” thats who I was talking about.
first of all, every human being alive today has the condition of laziness because of our genetic history. It is bad for survival to perform unnecessary work, so humans constantly try to eliminate work that appears to be unnecessary. Secondly, if they are willing to work hard and take responsibility for their own survival, then what is the big deal? Why do you oppose their voluntary agreements to exchange labor for money? Why urge them towards larceny?
would you mind sharing what you consider to be self-evident about that statement?
actually I was paraphrasing you:
if the have nothing to offer but their labor, and most of them arent industrious enough to use that, then I call them “people who have nothing to offer and demand to e taken care of.” you are going to have to explain what you meant because it all looks kosher to me.
well, so what? There are people like this, and fortunately there is a market for labor. So bam! They can get jobs, and make money, and buy things, and then they have more to offer on the market than just their labor. No communism necessary. Of course, if you ask me, work is a necessary prerequisite for being considered working class.
no, “natural equilibrium” most certainly did not feed anyone. Those individual human beings fed themselves and each other. “equlibrium” is a word, a concept, a description. “equilibrium” cannot feed anyone.
so you are familiar with the concept of scarcity. How do you propose to abolish scarcity in order to make your system workable?
well I would check your definition of “work” as it applies to aboriginal life. You ought to know how dangerous it is to generalize about thousands of diverse and multivarious cultures. But generally, they did not have the caloric surplus to waste on unproductive activities. Thats kind of why tot-ag changed everything. Of course, if you have evidence of your position, by all means, post it. But please dont ask me to wade through a link that doesnt have your evidence AGAIN.
what is your source for aborigines having a fewer than 8hr work day?
I apologize for the ambiguous phrasing. This is what I meant, from Theory of Money and Credit.
mises was talking about money but it applies to all owned goods. When the owner allows the employee to use (descriptive sense) his machine, the owner is actually using (economic sense) the machine by combining it with other goods he owns, the skilled labor he has contracted to purchase and the raw materials. In a descriptive sense, the employee is using the machine. In an economic sense, he is actually using his body as a capital good. We know this is ownership because the responsibility for providing maintenance inputs lies with the owner of the machine unless they contract otherwise. The owner is responsible for getting the machine repaired and the worker is responsible for his own nourishment. The same thing applies to rent. When I, the owner, rent out an apartment, I am using it to create income.
thats awfully generous of you. Is that a norm or a preference?
well I guess we could just cuss each other out instead?
ok, but if you are going to advocate some of the things you appear to be advocating, I would like you to either explain how it would work without a state simply call yourself a filthy communist. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I believed I had seen you refer to yourself as an ancom.
well, I lol’d. Of course the wages are higher, but are the products any good? Also, is stability a normative value or simply a preference?
its because they are not generally as productive. This is why workers like it, wages are higher and they work less.
tragedy of the commons?
if a business cannot afford to pay its bills, then it must not be productive. Therefore banks disincentivize nonproductivity when they forclose on a failing business.
your dismissal of ownership rights causes you to conflate these too? Ok, welfare is money that is taken from one group BY FORCE and then redistributed. Naturally, there have to be some standards to determine who receives the largess and who does not. With welfare, your money and my money both go to pay bureaucrats who decide how to administer the funds. Neither of us has any leverage to determine that our money was spent in the way that we would like to see it spent. With a charity, the exact opposite happens. Neither of us is forced to contribute one cent unless and until we are satisfied with the organization and the distribution plan. We also refrain from creating a rent-seeking government agency. The charity must continually meet our demands as to how to distribute the funds, or they will be cut off. These positive and negative feedback mechanisms are wholly absent with welfare. People are entitled to welfare under color of law. Charity is a gift. If you cannot see how these programs are as different from each other as the night is from the day, say something and I will explain further.
you mentioned production. If I choose to reward someone for what you consider “nonproductive behavior.” then it really makes no difference to you. It doesnt cost you anything and it doesnt obligate you in the least. However, if a bureaucrat spends your tax dollars rewarding what you consider to be “nonproductive behavior” then it does affect you a great deal. You are poorer, and now color of law has created an expectation. You have no opportunity to select an agent to administer your surplus funds, and you have no say in how they are administered. The funds are going to the “needy” obviously people who need more than they produce. If you were to donate to a charity, you could find a charity that rewarded people you considered to be productive.
you appear to be suggesting that when this capitalist purchases things, they cease to become the fruits of his labor.
please explain how a monopoly arises without any sort of qualifications.
who said they were always the best? The owner can consult his employees if he likes. He can even hire experts! Why is it always about dictating things to others with you people?
Hahahahaha I did not realize we were discussing interspecies relations?
faith is not inherently irrational, faith is a prerequisite for reason. Furthermore, I have reason to reject the theoryof limitations on logic, the arrow of time being one of them.
[quoteuser=“Malachi”]
faith is a prerequisite for reason.
[/quote]
Yes, which is why faith cannot be considered “reasonable”. That’s putting the cart before the horse. Therefore, faith is not “reasonable”. It is acceptance without knowledge.
[quoteuser=“Malachi”]
I have reason to reject the theory of limitations on logic, the arrow of time being one of them.
[/quote]
We can at least agree that our implementation of logic is inherently limited. I’d also venture that without some sort of implicit dualism, logic is inapplicable, as it is a method of differentation.
LOL, at least we agree on the rest!
Somewhat off-topic, but something time related I find cool: