Not necessarily. If you slowly develop towards logical omnisicence, you’ll only accept beliefs implied by your existing ones, but you will believe some new things. You will update your beliefs on new implications from current beliefs rather than evidence, sure, but that’s not such a weird concept—it ran strongly through the schools of analytic philosophy for a long time.
Right, which is why I said “for example”. My point is simply that there are many fewer contradiction between our beliefs than CronoDAS’ comment would suggest, since our beliefs are somewhat formed by processes that make them coherent.
If you only accept beliefs that are implied by your existing ones, you’ll never believe anything new. And as such, you’ll stop updating your beliefs.
Not necessarily. If you slowly develop towards logical omnisicence, you’ll only accept beliefs implied by your existing ones, but you will believe some new things. You will update your beliefs on new implications from current beliefs rather than evidence, sure, but that’s not such a weird concept—it ran strongly through the schools of analytic philosophy for a long time.
Right, which is why I said “for example”. My point is simply that there are many fewer contradiction between our beliefs than CronoDAS’ comment would suggest, since our beliefs are somewhat formed by processes that make them coherent.