In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:
> I didn't say "contestable assumption". What I said was "assumption". > Assumptions refer to a lack of demonstration. You certainly assume > what you don't demonstrate by calling it obvious.
In mathematics, all assumptions (axiom systems) are merely conditional, to see what will follow from them. When what follows proves useful or interesting, one tends to codify those assumptions. but that never requires that one claims them true is any absolute sense. Such assumptions are always "what if's".
>Obviously it is a > canonical assumption on your part that what you say is true. Whether > it is actually true or not however remains to be seen.
But it is something that Zilch is unable to see.
> > My claim in general terms is that the alternative > to absolute falseness is universally true.
A claim which means nothing, unless Zilch can establish that there is an absolute falseness. Is that anything like establishing that "Satan" exists?