A few things I can think of that it can ascertain:
1. Something exists, otherwise I would not be asking this question.
2. I exist (in some way), otherwise I would not be asking this question.
3. Math exists (e.g., 1 +2 = 3), because it can be proven without observation.
Examples of things it cannot ascertain:
1. Observations, as these may be distorted forms of reality.
2. Empirical data, as this is based on observations.
3. Other minds, as my perception of other people is entirely dependent on observations.
You catch my drift. Am I in some sort of philosophical fallacy here? It seems like, when I define the true reach of logic, it does a lot less than I hoped it would.
1. Something exists, otherwise I would not be asking this question.
2. I exist (in some way), otherwise I would not be asking this question.
3. Math exists (e.g., 1 +2 = 3), because it can be proven without observation.
Examples of things it cannot ascertain:
1. Observations, as these may be distorted forms of reality.
2. Empirical data, as this is based on observations.
3. Other minds, as my perception of other people is entirely dependent on observations.
You catch my drift. Am I in some sort of philosophical fallacy here? It seems like, when I define the true reach of logic, it does a lot less than I hoped it would.
Facebook
Twitter