@MCogito I don’t think @Helix_Perichora 's argument is good enough, but it definitely isn’t an illusion. Too, knocking down a strawman is easy, as you have by calling it an illusion.
Try viewing it in its best light. Do you deny that for a coherent reality there’s got to be logic? Is it not true that logic is jobless without truth?
I don’t say it but I see him in his best light i.e. as a colleague, as a guy attempting to solve fucking hard metaphysical questions. If not I wouldn’t bother to demolish his argument. OK kiss-kiss ends here 
You have reading problems: I explained that logic belong to communication of thought, is a sequentialization of thought. If we say our best link to reality is our thinking then logic does not primarily relate to reality. Another way is to say it: it is unconscious. An independent way is quantum randomness: the only thing you can say about this core bottom of reality is that it cannot be defined by the logic of analgorithm. You can’t with a causal logic talk on intrinsic randomness because it is a-causal by definition. But I know: you are still confused What age are you btw?
I ask you, can we shower without getting wet?, and you make irrelevant statements about soap and the bathroom.
Because Einstein was simply an old fart hopelessly fixated on the mathematical beauty of continuous differential equation models. But classical physics models explicitly explode into nonsensical infinities when pushed down to the particle level (e.g., the ultraviolet catastrophe).
Then quantification emerged to truncate those infinities, and suddenly physics worked again.
What is absolutely immanent to the very concept of quantification is that, by definition, you cannot access the “inside” of a quantum. It is the fundamental physical bound. So, what is “inside” it? Nothing. Meaning: raw, structureless randomness.
I firmly believe Niels Bohr understood this profound ontological limit, whereas Einstein did not. And clearly, neither do you.
Furthermore, using the word “logic” as a counter-argument here relies on a concept that is way too broad and ill-defined. What I just explained to you is precisely the rigorous “logic” of the a-logical nature of true randomness.
edit: in my MCogito system QM randomness logically close the [ non-coded [ coded ]] Totality (and was an external validation of my system). But it is impossible do give any logic of the inside of ramdomness, it can only be defined by it’s a-causality, a-codability. See the nuance here? To go further you have to go to extremely hard concepts around “dual” I think but it is both way beyond my abilities and my purpose which was to build a working model of the [matter-life-thought] Totality.
Thank you for the history lesson @MCogito.
The argument does not equate the formal category “logic” with the invariant distinctions it identifies (observation, reason—prediction, communication, and navigation).
A cave man calculating the correct angle, velocity, wind resistance, and distance when throwing a spear was already using those distinctions well before Aristotle formalized anything. Or are you claiming that everyone’s actions before Aristotle were illogical?
Okay, “mimicking” what? “generating a mental simulation of the world”—a “mental simulation” of what exactly? You are literally making my own argument for me. Any “mimicking” and “mental simulation” already require a world with stable distinctions.
“The collateral damage of having a larynx and a mouth forced into sequential communication” is again making my argument for me. Without those stable distinctions, no coherent human action would be possible in the objective world at all—you could not move purposefully, generate controlled sound, or interact with reality in any meaningful way. Thinking itself is therefore an abstraction layer built on top of those foundational distinctions.
The distinctions you call “collateral damage” are exactly the stable, mind-independent distinctions the argument defends.
Quanta are excitations of underlying quantum fields. The Schrödinger equation itself is fully deterministic and unitary. Indeterminism at measurement appears only under one common interpretation. Neither that interpretation nor your claim of “structureless nothingness” and “a-logical randomness” is a proven fact of the theory—both go beyond what the equations actually show.
The claim of an “a-logical nature of true randomness” together with your assertion of a “rigorous ‘logic’ of the a-logical” is self-contradictory—it is an oxymoron on its face. You are employing logic, definitions, and causal reasoning to argue that the foundation of reality is a-logical and a-causal. QM itself remains a rigorous mathematical framework whose probabilities obey strict conservation laws, symmetries, and predictive power.
Do you understand the implications of “true randomness”? It would require an infinite array of stable outcomes, each of which would have to be actual and true at the point of coherence. Yet you offer no mechanism other than magic to justify the claim. Any such “randomness” still presupposes the very stable distinctions (this outcome vs not-this outcome) it claims to escape.
Your “MCogito system” and its “[non-coded [ coded ]] Totality” is purely private philosophy. It has no standing in actual physics. You even admit the deeper “dual” concepts are “way beyond my abilities.” Your argument ultimately boils down to “trust me bro, I made it up.”
@Delirium: you are responsible of this platonic mess So take charge and answer for me please! (pm if you need details)
Thank you for the direct follow-up @Delirium.
Thoughts are not Truth. Thoughts are not the stable distinctions the argument defends.
Truth in the argument is defined as “invariant” and “honest”: it is what actually is—unchanging, stable, and not an illusion—regardless of what anyone thinks (see post 165). Thoughts, by contrast, can be variant and dishonest—they can be illusions, errors, or deliberate falsehoods.
At the fundamental level, thoughts/thinking can align with Truth (logical) or misalign with Truth (illogical).
That is precisely why the Liar and heap paradoxes appear. They are mental/linguistic constructs that exist inside the subjective abstraction layer of thought. They can seem non-binary only while they remain in the mind. The moment those thoughts are enacted objectively—spoken aloud, written down, or physically demonstrated—the supposed contradiction vanishes and becomes an objective, observable phenomenon in the shared world (soundwaves, marks on paper, or physical action). Even brain activity measurements only capture physical correlates; the paradoxical content itself remains a subjective mental construct. The paradoxes therefore do not show that Truth is non-binary; they show that thoughts can misalign (illogically) with it.
This is not a flaw in the argument—it is exactly what the argument predicts.
You cant know if your logic is true and presupposes the truth. Your can only estimate and say if A=A patern is correct then it should be.
@MCogito sorry
Thank you @Delirium for the follow-up.
A quantum particle is never literally here and there at the same time in objective reality. The idea that it can be in multiple places simultaneously exists only as a mathematical abstraction—a useful predictive tool inside our minds. Whenever the particle is actually measured, it is always found in one definite location. A particle has never been found “here” and “there” when actually measured objectively.
If the one person is innocent, it is always wrong to kill an innocent person, even if it “saves” five others. The moral distinction good/bad remains binary.
Humans are biologically either male (XY chromosomes) or female (XX chromosomes). There is no third category. Rare intersex conditions are developmental variations within the male/female binary, not a separate sex. Gender identity is a subjective psychological experience and does not alter the objective biological distinction.
Grey is not simultaneously black and white in reality. It is a particular frequency of light that our minds categorise as “grey”. The vagueness is in language and perception, not in the objective colour itself.
In every case, the apparent non-binarity exists only in the subjective abstraction layer of thought. When enacted in objective reality, the invariant distinctions assert themselves without exception. That is exactly what the argument predicts.
I thought you’d never reply. Thank you for getting back.
I find these examples undercut your stable distinctions view of reality and with it truth.
Thank you for the reply @Zombie.
We can know because logic—observation and reasoning—would be impossible without invariant distinctions that exist objectively, independent of our subjective thoughts.
How could any language, including sign language, function if there were no individual distinctions to anchor words and signals to?
How would we even distinguish food from not-food without those distinctions existing prior to our thinking?
This is empirically provable with babies. Infants are not born with advanced thinking capacity. They have to interact with objective reality and learn the distinctions through repeated experience.
Thank you @Delirium.
The wavefunction is a mathematical model of probabilities—not the underlying objective reality itself. In objective reality, whenever the electron’s position is actually measured (or interacts with a detector, screen, etc.), it is always found at one single definite location. You never observe it literally “here and there” simultaneously because that is impossible when enacted in objective reality.
No, it is never good (or morally justified) to kill an innocent person. You are responsible only for your own actions. The loss of five lives would be a tragedy, but that does not make intentionally ending an innocent life “good.” The moral distinction good/bad applies directly to the choice itself and remains binary.
You are conflating subjective gender identity with objective biological sex. A person’s feelings or self-identification do not change their chromosomes or reproductive biology. If a small child believes he is Batman, that does not make it objectively true. The same principle applies here. Biological sex remains a stable male/female distinction (with rare developmental variations that do not create a third category).
In each example, the apparent non-binarity lives only in abstraction or subjectivity. When enacted in objective reality, the stable distinctions assert themselves without exception.
de Broglie’s matter wave means particles are waves. They are both (re wave-particle duality). It’s easy to imagine a man turning into a lupus (American Werewolf in London), that’s just topological transformation (stretching, squishing), but how does an electron morph from being a wave to a particle and vice versa? You do understand the difficulty. The distinction man-wolf is not as cut-and-dried as the distinction wave-particle.
What’s the difference between tragedy and bad? Tragedies are to be prevented because they’re bad.
That’s a great point. However there are biological reasons to conclude sex is non-binary e.g. male nipples and if you know a little embryology you’ll know that the default bauplan is female.
Black-and-white thinking, I’m constantly reminded, is an oversimplification.
Thank you @Delirium.
De Broglie never claimed particles literally are waves. He proposed that particles have associated wave-like properties. The wavefunction itself is not a physical thing in objective reality—it is a mathematical tool that describes probabilities. Each single particle is still detected at one definite location. The interference pattern only appears statistically after many such detections.
The moral distinction good/bad remains binary on the action itself. Intentionally killing an innocent person is bad, full stop. The tragedy suffered by five people does not make the action of killing the one good.
Male nipples and the embryonic default developmental plan are variations within the male/female binary—they do not create a third sex. Biological sex remains objectively binary.
Black-and-white thinking is not the claim. Thinking can be non-binary—that is precisely what enables genuine free relational pursuit. But the non-binarity exists only in the abstraction layer of thought.
Even so, there are distinctions that never change at all:
When enacted in objective reality, the stable distinctions assert themselves without exception.
I’m not disagreeing with you even though I raised some objections, which was done so with sincerity. I did mention I was curious how you would respond. I now find your responses satisfactory, if that means anything to you.
Good luck.
Thank you @Delirium.
I appreciate you raising the objections with sincerity and genuine curiosity. I’m glad the responses were satisfactory.
Good luck to you as well.
I’ll stop at point 3. I’d like to understand better so I can follow you. Logic presupposes truth, yes, and it also presupposes falsity. So we can, through logic, establish whether a proposition is true or false. Why does truth become reified at point 4? What logical leap makes us say it “must exist” (only the truth) somewhere and becomes a universal foundation? Logic is our conceptual tool. What am I missing? I hope these are useful questions for both of us, but they’ll be more so for me, as I sometimes struggle to follow such broad passages.
Thank you @Alfio.
The key lies in what “Truth” actually means in lines 3 and 4. It is not merely the logical property of a proposition being true versus false. Truth, in this argument, is the ontological precondition that creates and coheres genuine distinctions (A=A) and the universe’s ordered structure. This is grounded in the definition of reality used here:
Logic certainly functions for us as a conceptual tool and does presuppose both truth and falsity. However, it can only function at all because reality already contains stable, actual distinctions that Logic itself does not create—it only identifies and names them (line 2). That is why line 3 states that Logic presupposes Truth.
Line 4 then follows necessarily: those stable distinctions cannot be contingent. If they could come into and out of existence or depend on something else, reality itself would not cohere. Therefore Truth must be non-contingent—Eternal.
In short, there is no logical leap. Logic presupposes Truth, and Truth can only fulfil its role of creating and cohering real distinctions if it is non-contingent.
(see posts 130 and 131 for more details on definitions, etc)
Happy to clarify any part further if this is still unclear.
To echo back what you’re saying:
Right, so you’re using that second definition. But here’s the thing. The definitions of the words “true” and “false” each point back to the other word. I.e., the words “true & truth” have no semantic definition unless you also have the words “false & falsehood”.
So now for your treatise you want to use the word “truth” to refer to reality (AKA the universe, existence, “everything that is the case”, etc.) In theory there is nothing wrong in this. But once you use the phrase “the truth" to refer to reality, your new definition has no matching counterpart. The phrase “the falsehood” has no semantic definition in this context.
In other words, using the word “truth” to refer to reality does not add anything to our philosophical toolkit as it were. In fact, it unnecessarily confuses things. If you stumble across a sentence that has the word “truth” in it? You would now have to figure out from the context which definition of “truth” is being used. Is this sentence using the “true or false” definition or the “truth is another word for reality” definition.
It would be much simpler to come up with a new technical term - philosophers do this all the time. You could use the made up word “blorble” and it would have the same effect.
- - - - - - - -
So now let’s go back to your definitions and see where it takes us. I’m gonna repeat some stuff for emphasis.
You start off with some dictionary definitions of the word “truth”
Next you say you’re using the second dictionary definition.
Next you define the word “reality”.
Notice the circularity here. You start off by saying truth is reality, then you say reality is the state of being true. But no matter, let’s move on. Next you say this:
And now you have given us yet another completely different definition of the word “Truth”. But the two definitions you are using are wildly different from one another.
If the contradictions between these different definitions is not obvious, there’s nothing I can do to help you.
- - - - - - - - -
BUT - there may be a way out. Or maybe not. Let’s see.
Ignoring your n-CEP concept for a moment, we can remove the contradiction between the two dictionary definitions by capitalizing one of them. Let’s let lower case “truth” be the “true/false” version and let upper case “Truth” be reality. And in fact that is just what you did above. You used lower case “truth” in your first dictionary definition and “Truth” in your second definition.
But now we have different definition problem, because upper case “Truth” has a very different dictionary meaning. Per Miriam-Webster, here is their third definition of capital T “Truth”:
“often Truth : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality”
So once you capitalize that letter “T”, you are not using the “actuality/reality” definition. Your are using yet another entirely different dictionary definition.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
BUT - interestingly enough, if we use this dictionary definition of capital T “Truth”, then what you are saying is at least consistent. Here would be your line of reasoning:
While these statements are consistent, the statement that “there is a transcendent fundamental reality” is an assertion without proof. Furthermore, this statement is disconnected from the second dictionary definition of reality/actuality (AKA the universe, existence, “everything that is the case”, “blorble”, etc.). Thus there is no way to assign a truth value via our good old reliable correspondence theory of truth.
- - - - - -
I consider this sort of writing to be a type of poetic musings. In fact, we can make a poem about your little treatise:
I know beyond all doubt
That there is Truth
And that Truth has always existed
And that Truth was there before time started.
And our existence began.
I’ll concede - most definitely not a great poem. I’m sure Poetic Universe could do better.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So look Helix_Perichora.
On the rare occasions that I directly engage with another person here on TPF, I make an effort to avoid commenting on personalities or possible deficiencies in someone’s intellectual abilities. Criticize the idea, not the person. But I am breaking my rule here . . . .
I find it funny that scattered about the world there are these obsessed individuals who study philosophy intensely - even tho they are outside the mainstream academic community. And these folks are typically quite knowledgeable about the history of philosophy. But then - after lots of thinking - they come out and assert that they have have conclusively solved a philosophical problem that all of previous philosophy has not been able to do. And they have a whole treatise behind it to back up their assertions.
Now of course no serious academic journal is going to publish this nonsense. So their next resource is to come out here to TPF.
So far so good?
I think not. So now please try to step back a bit and look at this from my perspective. Here’s how my thinking goes . . . .
As I sit here in the year 2026 and look back at the history of philosophy, one thing stands out to me above everything else. It is the simple fact that some of the most brilliant minds in all of history - people much, much smarter than you or I - have never resolved disagreements in even the most of basic philosophical concepts - and these disagreements continue to this very day.
It would be like if in physics some people say E=MC**2 while others claim it is MC**3 - but there would be no way to determine which was correct.
So as soon as someone comes here to TPF and says “Try denying this?" That’s the “tell” - that immediately informs us that this person thinks that they have solved some 2500 year old philosophical conundrum. Something that the most brilliant minds in all of history were unable to do.
This is delusional thinking.
- - - - - -
This is a very cruel thing to say, but I have to thank you for providing me with much entertainment. There are some very smart people out here on TPF who delight in shredding your notions. It is fun watching as you try to wriggle and squirm your way out of the obvious bad assumptions & contradictions in your treatise.
But I have a prediction that I would be willing to gamble on. I predict that you will never, ever, ever acknowledge that you were wrong. That’s what I say. Try denying it.