>>510909181
So, to quote (which you failed to do when requested):
>>510908358
>Chalking this opinion down to your atheism.
Irrelevant to the content being replied to, presented as a strawman of what I actually said.
>Which still rely on classical meta-theory to even reason about them and their properties.
Obviously false given the long history of the philosophy of logic and the relatively recent recent arrival of "classical" logic, as mentioned in the reply. How do you think classical meta-theory came to be in vogue in the first place?
>I don't know what this is supposed to mean but the universe abides by its laws as far as anyone can tell.
To which I replied
>>510908829
>Which are not the rules of logic formulated by humans. Some laws of logic seem to map to abstractions of the universe, but the map is not the territory.
Much logic, very reason.
