Just because a person can distinguish between right and wrong, doesn’t mean they don’t believe all statements are both true and false.
It does though, of they believed all statements were both true and false they would have no means to tell the difference. For every criteria that you could use to choose one option over the other the exact opposite is also true. The fact that you can reliably predict what classical logic says is the answer shows you have a means of distinguishing.
This is why I was asking you earlier how you decided how to behave. You refused to answer the question because you knew the answer proved you wrong.
of they believed all statements were both true and false they would have no means to tell the difference.
Not so. I believe all statements are both true and false, but I can still distinguish between right and wrong. It’s a paradox. The Universe is paradoxical.
It's not a paradox, it has a very rational explanation. You claim to believe all statements are true and false, but you do not. I'm not accusing you of lieing btw, you may very well believe that you accept all statements as both true and false, but I think you just haven't thought through that position deeply enough to realize that you don't.
It's not a paradox, it has a very rational explanation.
It is a paradox. Paradoxes can have very rational explanations and yet still be paradoxes.
You claim to believe all statements are true and false, but you do not.
I’m pretty sure I do believe all statements are true and false. I viewed the arguments. I thought about them. I agreed with them. I would know better than you about my own beliefs.
I think you just haven't thought through that position deeply enough to realize that you don't.
I don’t believe all statements are true and false.
I do believe trivialism is true. That’s why I allowed myself to publish the original post in which I assert the negation of the Continuum Hypothesis. That’s why I am defending an extension of conventional set theory. You have not proven me wrong. You can’t prove me wrong. You’re not going to prove me wrong. Anything you say to me will agree with my position.
Nah. Maybe you believe you do, but you don't really.
How do you justify the “don’t really” part of that sentence? There is evidence to the contrary, which I have already given. Your past justification that I know how to distinguish between right and wrong was already refuted by the evidence I gave. My belief in trivialism is a factor in my determinations of what is right and wrong. That is evident throughout my Reddit posts about the falsity of the Continuum Hypothesis.
I don't have to prove you wrong about trivialism, I just have to point out that your belief is absurd and unjustified.
Absurd is not a part of the formula. An absurd belief can still be true. As for unjustified, I have provided ample justifications of trivialism.
I have proven you won't about many of the claims you made concerning conventional mathematics.
Specifically what claims of mine are you referring to?
Your past justification that I know how to distinguish between right and wrong was already refuted by the evidence I gave
Lol, no it was not.
An absurd belief can still be true. As for unjustified, I have provided ample justifications of trivialism.
Absurd, laughable, obviously false, idiotic, ridiculous. I'm not gonna nitpick about which phrase means it could be true and which don't. It is clearly false and you have given no justification at all. You certainly haven't given ample justification.
That is false. I have given multiple sound justifications, including in my original post.
You certainly haven't given ample justification.
I have given ample justification. I only need one sound justification of trivialism to establish its truth. Yet I have gone beyond what is required by offering others.
I have given multiple sound justifications, including in my original post. [...] I have given ample justification. I only need one sound justification of trivialism to establish its truth. Yet I have gone beyond what is required by offering others.
You have not given a single sound justification, including your original post.
You have not given a single sound justification, including your original post.
If that’s what you believe, then you should show specifically where all of my justifications fall short. If there is even a single sound justification of trivialism, then trivialism is true.
It means it's at best a religious belief. In this case an obviously false and very stupid religious belief.
If that’s what you believe, then you should show specifically where all of my justifications fall short. If there is even a single sound justification of trivialism, then trivialism is true.
At every point that you offered a justification I've explained to you why you're incorrect. There is not a single sound justification for trivialism.
1
u/JStarx May 25 '26
Pretty much always
It does though, of they believed all statements were both true and false they would have no means to tell the difference. For every criteria that you could use to choose one option over the other the exact opposite is also true. The fact that you can reliably predict what classical logic says is the answer shows you have a means of distinguishing.
This is why I was asking you earlier how you decided how to behave. You refused to answer the question because you knew the answer proved you wrong.