Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Give Up...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mark on August 24, 2001 21:13:21 UTC

This is starting to get too philosophical. I've come to realise that there is no way with which I can answer this problem satisfactoraly.

I can't get away from circular reasonig, but I have concluded that it may perhaps be impossible to define the infrastructure of mathematics in a non self-referencing manner. I'm not allowed to use logic to explain what it is for something to be logic. Can you at least see how that very act is necesary and yet at the same time is self-referencing?? Any valid argument must substantiate its claim with a logical backing. How can I argue what logic is by using my own logical intuition....?? Circular reasoning is almost inevitable in this argument and therefore I cannot push on any further in forging ever more clever arguments to back up my point.....I don't even know what my point is at this point. My previous school of thought must simply be invalid.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins