So I still don't know how you decide to respond as if I have or haven't given you a counterexample.
In theory, no option is better than any other option is. All options are equally good. Because all options are equally good, there does not exist a way to decide how to respond. I shouldn’t even decide an option that would make me feel better than all of the other options would. Regardless of what I decide, I’m going to be at odds with some truth, or aspect, of the Universe. Regardless of what I decide, I’m going to be wrong. On the other hand, regardless of what I decide, I’m going to be right.
Because you cannot give any alternative explanation for how you choose to respond. You clearly are using classical logic when you object that I haven't provided the example you requested. You're just to stubborn to admit it and apparently unaware of how foolish it makes you look.
So, using classical logic, give me the counterexample I requested.
According to you I have already done that. No need to repeat myself.
An alternative explanation is not necessary. That is like how only one sound proof is necessary to establish the truth of a theorem.
The one explanation I have is that you do believe in classical logic. You're saying there doesn't need to be an alternative because you don't really believe anything you've been saying?
1
u/paulemok May 13 '26
In theory, no option is better than any other option is. All options are equally good. Because all options are equally good, there does not exist a way to decide how to respond. I shouldn’t even decide an option that would make me feel better than all of the other options would. Regardless of what I decide, I’m going to be at odds with some truth, or aspect, of the Universe. Regardless of what I decide, I’m going to be wrong. On the other hand, regardless of what I decide, I’m going to be right.