Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- munchausen_s_trilemma [2026/02/20 06:47] – appledog
+++ munchausen_s_trilemma [2026/02/20 06:56] (current) – appledog
@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 "How do you know that?" I.E. do you know you have hands? I.E. solipsism.
-The issue here is that Munchausen's trilema exposes that while you may not be able to explain or expose the justification for a true belief, you yet can state a fact (without necessarily explaining it or justifying it). The PURPOSE of this epiphany is merely to point out that regardless of the weakness of each case in the trilemma, **nevertheless** you are able to know things, and //therefore// you have a justification.
+The issue here is that Munchausen's trilemma exposes that while you may not be able to explain or expose the justification for a true belief, you yet can state a fact (without necessarily explaining it or justifying it). The PURPOSE of this epiphany is merely to point out that regardless of the weakness of each case in the trilemma, **nevertheless** you are able to know things, and //therefore// you have a justification. You just aren't able to explain it easily.
-Put another way, what is the necessary contingent that is not contingent? The "post-eternal?" The first mover, the necessary being? It does not matter if you know what it is, but we are forced to conclude that it must exist (i.e. the problem of entropy, problem of time, etc). This is the "A", the non-contingent principle -- the idea that something must be non-contingent, //since// or //due to// every case of the trilemma being unsatisfactory.
+Put another way, what is the necessary contingent that is not contingent informing the fundamental truth of existance? The "post-eternal?" The first mover, the necessary being? It does not matter if you know what it is, but we are forced to conclude that it must exist (i.e. the problem of entropy, problem of time, etc). This is the "A", the non-contingent principle -- the idea that something must be non-contingent, //since// or //due to// every case of the trilemma being unsatisfactory.
 Otherwise, what then is the "satisfactory fourth case"?
+=== On Solipsism
+"IF that were true," then the source of truth underpinning all reality would simply be myself. Given then some question such as "how do you //know// you have eyes //(or hands, or how do you know you have a brain)// -- if you didn't, but you thought you did, OR if you did but thought you didn't, then this would mean there is hidden information you are not aware of -- and then de facto there is some separation between you and whatever is processing reality (and therefore solipsism is untrue).
+In short there is no reason not to trust your senses (etc.) since there is nothing //informing// the anti-case. The idea that //we may speculate over this,// is only a statement that we may exercise free will. This is the "law of Five" in western occultism -- the idea that we can imagine anything. However, this is the important conclusion over that, it is not real. It is not real because it could be anything and this does not affect the world, or the world could not function. Therefore it is the proverbial invisible pink unicorn. How do you know it is pink if it is invisible? In fact, there is no meaning to this, it is not pink, and in fact by definition there is no such unicorn.
+The conclusion is that there must be a value proposition to any truth; if something is true and there is no value proposition, it is untrue. All truth affects the world, there is a power of natural selection to it; this also lends itself to the concept of a living religion; like the boy who lived in harry potter-- the dead religion is false, the only true religion must be a living religion. And all of this points to the B case and not the C case. This verifies B, but not C -- C-class claims //must// come later. This gives us an edge; others can only barely deal with A-class logic. B-class logic is a higher logic, like helper libraries in a kernal.
 == FACE discussion