The reason is that you don’t believe anything with logical conviction, if your “axioms” imply absurdity, you discard the “axioms” as untrustworthy, thus refuting the arguments for their usefulness (that always precede any beliefs, if you look for them). Why do I believe this? My brain tells me so, and its reasoning is potentially suspect.
I think I’ve found the problem: I don’t have any good intuitive notion of absurdity. The only clear association I have with it is under “absurdity heuristic” as “a thing to ignore”.
That is: It’s not self evident to me that what it implies IS absurd. After all, it was implied by a chain of logic I grok and can find no flaw in.
The reason is that you don’t believe anything with logical conviction, if your “axioms” imply absurdity, you discard the “axioms” as untrustworthy, thus refuting the arguments for their usefulness (that always precede any beliefs, if you look for them). Why do I believe this? My brain tells me so, and its reasoning is potentially suspect.
I think I’ve found the problem: I don’t have any good intuitive notion of absurdity. The only clear association I have with it is under “absurdity heuristic” as “a thing to ignore”.
That is: It’s not self evident to me that what it implies IS absurd. After all, it was implied by a chain of logic I grok and can find no flaw in.
I used “absurdity” in the technical math sense.