[sdht0]

> base_ruleset is not true in and of itself in the way 2+2=4 is.

Also, my claim is these are exactly the same. 2+2=4 is only true because of the axioms of number theory. Maybe geometry is more illustrative where different axioms give rise to euclidean or hyberbolic geometry, etc. base_ruleset is similarly an axiom of reality.

My usual example of the rules of Conway's Game of Life applies. The rules don't have any reason to exist, but once posited, the board generations naturally follow.

> A1 must fail unless one is prepared to assert that things happen without reason (in which case the 'chocolate cake' argument applies)

To be explicit here, things happening without a reason (positing an axiom) is in no way the same as things being illogical. Axioms are part of logic.

[geye1234]

I'm sorry, I don't have time to do this at this point. I enjoyed our conversation and you made me think through my positions, which is always good. I genuinely wish you well :)

[sdht0]

Thank you sticking to it for so long! It was a refreshing perspective on natural theology. And I will have to think about "can there be a reason for base_ruleset" quite some more.

Wishing you all the best as well :)