Quote:
Originally Posted by John Freestone  But it might be useful to go back to first principles in this thread - is there any consensus about how the LoA is defined. Is it accepted that it's like Steve expresses above? There is just you, reading this, making everything?
If so, I can see why science gets such a bad press - you just created the whole of that too. Logic and reason would all be circular. But then why present QM and suchlike as "evidence" of LoA? Why is science a load of imaginary hogwash except the bits that you think support your worldview, which you also made up to support it? Why would you argue about the reality of QM? |
As this would likely lead us into the debate on subjective vs. objective reality, here's an
old thread on that with some of my views about it that haven't since been updated. And I agree, with respect to the LoA, if you adhere to a purely subjective reality, there's no point in talking about it. Progress can only exist in an objective reality (or as I described it in the thread linked, an objective reality with subjective interactions). Logic and reason are circular anyway, being that first principles are circular by necessity of being first principles. As for your actual questions, the hell if I knew.
