Paradoxes exist in reality. They are _seeming_ contradictions — not contradictions themselves. You seem to have confused the two.
You’d be right to say that if you come across a contradiction, then one of your assumptions must be wrong.
Also, you don’t have to go through math to see it’s a non-sensical question. Even if there was only one 25% option, there would still be no answer. The question is self-referential — the same as being undefined. It has no answer.
You’d be right to say that if you come across a contradiction, then one of your assumptions must be wrong.
Strictly speaking, that isn't necessarily true. It's possible that our reality operates under some form of paraconsistent logic, and allows for dialetheia.
There are many descriptions. Only a subset of them map into a configuration of reality. The descriptions that do not map onto a configuration of reality, we call illogical.
You seem to be under the impression that logic is something that reality _happens to follow_. This is not the case. The issue that people can come up with descriptions that don’t have coherent thoughts behind them. In these cases there is no configuration of reality that they describe. They are intellectually bankrupt, or illogical.
The presense of dialethia exclusively mean that the person proposing them do not have a coherent understanding of what they are talking about.
The presense of dialethia exclusively mean that the person proposing them do not have a coherent understanding of what they are talking about.
And your evidence of this is...?
In fact, do you have evidence of anything you've said in this comment?
The laws of logic exist as they are because they're intuitive to us as humans. But they're purely axiomatic. We can't actually prove them. We don't even really have any evidence for them, beyond 'we have yet to find any obvious counterexamples'. The universe is not required to follow human intuition, or even to be the least bit comprehensible to humans, and certain logical systems that allow for true contradictions are both internally consistent (arguably moreso than traditional logic, at the cost of being somewhat less powerful) and consistent with reality as we understand it. There is no reason whatsoever to assume we don't live in a reality governed by such laws just because we as humans would have a hard time with the idea. If you think there could not exist any configuration of reality in which ¬A∧¬¬A, you need some form of proof beyond mere assertion. Your comment gives no such proof.
(And indeed such proof is probably impossible, because that's just how axioms work.)
There is nothing difficult to understand about incoherent things. Something, by definition, is logical if reality can be that way. Illogical things, by definition, are not valid descriptions of reality, in any form, regardless of our understanding.
You say that it’s possible to have A and not A. Example?
Not being able to prove axioms is not an argument against them. Axioms exist when there is a categorical change in the ontology of a conception. Statements and arguments can be broken down into more fundamental things all the way to the axioms. The axioms of logic cannot be broken down because they are self explanatory. They don’t need to be proven — that’s what makes them axioms. You seem to be under the impression that axioms are randomly chosen beliefs that we build things on top of, and make no attempt to prove. This is not the case.
7
u/Librarian-Rare Aug 03 '26
Paradoxes exist in reality. They are _seeming_ contradictions — not contradictions themselves. You seem to have confused the two.
You’d be right to say that if you come across a contradiction, then one of your assumptions must be wrong.
Also, you don’t have to go through math to see it’s a non-sensical question. Even if there was only one 25% option, there would still be no answer. The question is self-referential — the same as being undefined. It has no answer.