General agnosticism is wrong because it doesn't recognize the foundational necessity of logic

# **Against general agnosticism**

Please include these analyses in the logical physicalism (atheism) books.

1. general agnosticism (which is open to the supernatural) doesn't recognize the foundational necessity of logic

2. general agnosticism (which is open to the supernatural) is an ontological analyses about the opinions of thinkers but not an ontological analysis of the overall reality
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

## General agnosticism is wrong because it doesn't recognize the foundational necessity of logic

General agnosticism doesn't recognize the foundational role of logic in every possible existence.

Logical/Rationalist agnosticism (Bertrand Russell's) is logicalism (logical positivism), physicalism and atheism, because knowledge is infinite, but brains, knowledge and theories are local/finite.

Any possible specific foundations is necessarily logical in order to shape a specific identity and to meet the prerequisites for specific existence.

General agnosticism (openness to violations of logic) is wrong.
Supernaturalists indirectly (with their shallow reasoning) claim that rigorous logic is violated for satisfying their own emotional logic which is based on emotional needs neuroscientifically and behaviorally explained (they're not aware of their biases to expose them openly). Personhood is the result of personhood-yielding computers which have spacetime as a more fundamental prerequisite in order they have a connectome, inputs, procedures and outputs.

\_\_\_\_\_

Most supernaturalisms don't reject logic, but they claim that non-mathematical logic is possible. Mathematics is a proof axiomatic system (see: proof theory/ see: John Stillwell), physics has different axiomatic prerequisites (a more coherent programlike axiomatic foundations and not a list of axioms).

see: axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations

Infinite axiomatic systems are logically possible.
There is no finite or trivially infinite omniuniversal axiomatic system (omniaxiomatics).

Physics has to be an allomathematics (allo- means different).
Infinite different allomathematics (mathematics with different axiomatic foundations; not only lists but also programs and hybrid axiomatics) are logically possible.

Common mathematics has fundamental logical gaps (see: foundations of mathematics) totally necessary in order they remain a general proof system.

The numbers in general mathematics aren't overdefined via self-interactions and biased solutions like in physics. Set theory doesn't prove the axioms of mathematics. Mathematics is just a general proof tool; not a physicality.

Physics has different axiomatic prerequisites, but it isn't a general proof system; thus infinite different physics and universes are logically possible thus meet the criteria of self-causation due to logic and not due to nihilogony/nilogony. A universe from nothing is impossible (pure nothingness isn't the void neither is it a potential state); a universe from logic is self-caused if it meets the axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations. Self-causation is both necessary in the system (physicalist) Universe and the God-Universe system (but personhood is less fundamental than the personhood-yielding computer which is less fundamental than spacetime; personhood isn't an axiomatic prerequisite for physical foundations, neither true personhood can be axiomatically shaped without an environment and normal evolution of character; personhood is gradient).

\_\_\_\_\_

Any possible logic, is mathematical or allomathematical; which is transcribable to common mathematics (the omniuniversal axiomatic system/ general transcriptor amongst axiomatic systems, isn't finite, cannot physically exist [Hubble volumes are limited; exocausality or transcausality via intermediaries outside Hubble volumes, introduces too much noise]... but any axiomatic system is mathematically describable (in common mathematics; but the transcriber isn't self-evident). Thus no supernatural logic can exist. All forms of logic are mathematical or allomathematical = mathematically transcribable = still mathematical.
Nonlogic has no characteristics. Nonlogic isn't only unreachable, but it doesn't produce specific characteristics in the first place. Thus the supernatural cannot achieve existence via nonlogic. The supernatural is impossible.

Mistakes are semantic mismappings, erroneous memories and dysfunctional wiring procedural results within physically logical thus possible worlds. Thus erroneous opinions on the supernatural, aren't supernatural.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

## Agnosticism isn't a worldview on the metaphysical actuality of the cosmos itself

Agnosticism (general agnosticism which is open to the supernatural) isn't a worldview on the metaphysical actuality of the cosmos itself, but a state of mind of the individual or a limitation of the individual. That isn't tautological to the workings of the cosmos. The "limitations of the individual", either personally or cosmically posed, are not the "mechanism of the universe"; thus agnosticism is a worldview about the opinions of the individual, and not about the cosmic actuality. The possibly hidden nature of the cosmos, isn't its only attribute, nor its deepest mechanism. Agnosticism is not the purest metaphysics on the cosmos, but it is pure ontic metaphysics on the individual (the thinker).

////////////////

## comment 1

Write more books and improve the logical physicalism (atheism) books.
(I put first the affirmative term (logical physicalism is sometimes deemed as hypernymic to logical positivism/ physicalism can be vague/ logical physicalism is specific) because the antonym (a-theism = non-godism) shouldn't come first because it makes the opposing idea the fundamental one.)

Sadly to some who want simple answers, some secondary explanations are unavoidable.

That's why "axiomatic systems" and "proof theory" = what is proof in mathematics, see: John Stillwell (books + lectures).

The true physics = ontophysics = ontological physics is being approached by scientific physics = scientophysics.

Proof systems/ mechanisms/ axiomatic systems, are logically compatible, but not necessarily tautological to physical reality (physical reality performs proof compatible tasks, necessarily logical, but not necessarily physically expressed in a general proof system = universes have specific foundations, not general proof foundations (this is an IMPORTANT subtlety; Plato confused [erroneously deemed physical the general proof axiomatic systems which don't meet the axiomatic prerequisites for physical foundations]... confused mathematics/geometry with physics, without ANY proof or deep explanation.).

You cannot avoid subtleties, because otherwise you leave open questions.

There is no way to cheat explaining by avoiding topics. Because a good thinker will expose the gaps.