This looks like fun, so I will try it. But I'm no grand philosophical intellectual.
Question A) In a hypothetical universe where the principle of non-contradiction does not hold(ie, A can be both A and not A simultaneously), is it possible to construct a meaningful and self-consistent system of knowledge? If so, how? If not, why?
In such a world, where absolutely everything can be both true and false, then I see no reason why a system of knowledge cannot also fit this world order, and therefore, have said system to be both pointless and meaningful simultaneously.
It would be impossible to actually comprehend this with the human mind, since the logic here doesn't hold up as objectively consistent. I'm sitting here trying to envision what a world could look like but it's too much for me.
I guess such a world would be like if dividing by zero is allowed and is the law, lol.
Though, thinking about it a little more, if A is A
and not A. Then wouldn't you simply need to know what A is and ignore not A to determine what A truly is and use that as a base of reference for interacting with A, and then go as far as to apply the same standards when evaluating other variables. I'm not sure how far this universe would extent. I'd assume, absolutely everything down to the atom and abstract thoughts of man would be affected, but if you could somehow managed to perceive things rationally in this world for whatever reason, then you could derive a legitimate system of knowledge.
Question B): If reality itself is infinitely self-referential—such that any comprehensive attempt to describe or understand it inevitably changes the nature of reality—how could conscious entities within this reality ever confirm the accuracy or objectivity of their observations? Would this imply an inherent, insurmountable limitation on knowledge itself, or could an entirely new form of epistemology be developed to accommodate infinite self-reference?
They couldn't, I'd imagine. Maybe they could if the system of change could be measurable, but I'd imagine that too follows this law of reality this universe proposes.
There would probably be a huge lack of knowledge indeed, since absolutely everything is always changing. This kinda world would just be like god playing dice forever and anything could happen. I don't understand the use of trying to understand this world. Sounds as if one moment I could be walking, the next I could be flying, the next swimming, the next floating in some void lol.
I don't know how much of this is true but if some action requires mostly no thought (like a reflex) then maybe, since you skip the "thinking" phase, it could be possible to go around reality without having that particular function ever changed. I don't know what the limit to that be, no one really thinks to walk or talk but could you realistically say, that even in subconscious action, no one stops to understand legs or mouth in general? I think that would be far from the truth, and thus, those interaction methods would cease.
Anyway, that's what I'd think. It's not Tuesday anymore though, so I think I failed that part.
