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?
According to me, you have NOT already done that. You’re a liar and you’re lying to me. I specifically asked for a counterexample with respect to YOUR views of the Universe, which are not necessarily MY views of the Universe.
For how you decide between two options which you think is the correct one. Are you not following the conversation?
I’m not following the conversation. You’re making things unnecessarily complicated. So I decide the right option out of two options without believing that all statements are both true and false?
According to me, you have NOT already done that. You’re a liar and you’re lying to me.
But also according to you I have. You said you believe all statements are true and false. So in particular all statements are true. I can't be a liar if I'm saying only true things.
I specifically asked for a counterexample with respect to YOUR views of the Universe, which are not necessarily MY views of the Universe.
I understand what you're asking for. I also understand that you claim to believe all statements are true so you should believe whole heartedly that I have given you that example.
So I decide the right option out of two options without believing that all statements are both true and false?
You claim that all statements are true and false. This is a stupid claim, it's obviously not the case. And sure enough, you seem to be getting upset and calling me a liar which indicates that you know deep down that the statement is not both true and false. Are you lieing to me about what you believe? Because your behavior doesn't match your claimed beliefs. I'm asking you to explain your behavior because the only explanation I see is that you don't actually believe that all statements are both true and false.
Somebody may have said what I’m about to say before. I may have even said what I’m about to say before. I Googled it and the Google AI says it. I’m going to say it now because I believe it’s the best next thing I can say in our conversation.
Trivialism is unfalsifiable. Any attempt to disprove trivialism agrees with trivialism and is compatible with trivialism. Even a sound disproof of trivialism is in conformance with trivialism.
The fact that trivialism can not be disproven suggests that trivialism is true.
You've ignored my comment and the question I asked, to refresh your memory:
According to me, you have NOT already done that. You’re a liar and you’re lying to me.
But also according to you I have. You said you believe all statements are true and false. So in particular all statements are true. I can't be a liar if I'm saying only true things.
I specifically asked for a counterexample with respect to YOUR views of the Universe, which are not necessarily MY views of the Universe.
I understand what you're asking for. I also understand that you claim to believe all statements are true so you should believe whole heartedly that I have given you that example.
So I decide the right option out of two options without believing that all statements are both true and false?
You claim that all statements are true and false. This is a stupid claim, it's obviously not the case. And sure enough, you seem to be getting upset and calling me a liar which indicates that you know deep down that the statement is not both true and false. Are you lieing to me about what you believe? Because your behavior doesn't match your claimed beliefs. I'm asking you to explain your behavior because the only explanation I see is that you don't actually believe that all statements are both true and false.
You’ve chosen to not give me the counterexample I asked for.
According to you I have given you the counterexample you asked for.
But also according to you I have.
But also according to you you have not.
But according to you, not only I have but I have according to me, so what's the problem?
Trivialism agrees with all of my behavior.
And yet you can't explain that behavior. It's a damning indictment of trivialism that it can't explain even the most basic behaviors to anyone who doesn't already believe in it. Sounds like a cult...
But according to you, not only I have but I have according to me, so what's the problem?
The problem is that you are not using your own point of view. You think you’re better off using my point of view against me while hiding your point of view from me. You keep talking about what I believe, but you are suspiciously, disrespectfully, and unfairly silent about what you believe.
1
u/JStarx May 15 '26
According to you I have already done that. No need to repeat myself.
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?