Still sticking to your tried and true lubricant strategy, eh? Let's (1) narrow this down so the logic does not escape you, and (2) recognize your characteristic response in discussions.
Addressing (1):
I said I suspect all personal premises are eventually determined to be wrong, including any on reality. That is why I cannot provide a proof.
proposition (supposition): P = "all personal premises are eventually determined to be wrong, including any on reality".
(your example of how you had previously made a wrong premise wrt reality was the supporting example).
Here "wrt" means "with respect to"
Your first response: Q = "Well, you will be wrong too"
Your conclusion: R = "there's not going to be anything left, nothing matters"
A. First, instead of trying to understand P, you were busy countering with Q. [Why is that? Why is it that trying to disparage somebody is more important to you than understanding what someone has to say, based on your own statements?]. P => Q is trivial logic. Do you think I was not aware of it? You use it to detract, as is your style.
B. Second, please show us a proof for P => R. Please keep the usual oily wiki-babble out of the logic.
Addressing (2):
My original statement was very simple, and also very deep. I did not have a proof to offer, just as no one can offer a proof that you are sane or even kind or even reasonable. The conditioned response to (throw in unrelated words, make statements that are not logical, confuse the issue) in you is so strong that you seem to be prepared to do anything to "win".
Who is it that seeks to win? Is it more than a collection of ideas that finds that it has to keep adjusting to its reality? You've already shown, by your own admission, that this collection of ideas is faulty wrt to reality and keeps changing. Whether the change is useful or not useful --- no one can tell.
|
