> Proofs about reality are not self contradicting.
Absolutely they are! Proofs are a deductive concept with no basis in reality. This is basic Hume. All we can work with is inductive and abductive reasoning, neither of which is sufficient for a proof.
> Proofs are a deductive concept with no basis in reality. This is basic Hume.
One, it's not. Two, you're trying to use Hume to prove a statement that refutes itself. The claim that your can prove proofs oxymoronic is itself an oxymoron.
Hume's critique of causation, moreover, has been amply supplanted since the 18th century. (Similar to Newton. In parts, it's been buttressed. In others, surpassed.)
> All we can work with is inductive and abductive reasoning, neither of which is sufficient for a proof
Mathematically false [1]. (And related to famous Gedankenexperiments, which prompted real science.)
Of course, this whole thread is a farce: you're purposefully confusing mathematial proofs with the colloquial "proof."
You’re rejecting mathematics, empiricism and reality as a foundation for defining proofs and thus truth. At that point, we’re in a Cartesian universe of 1 = 1.
Absolutely they are! Proofs are a deductive concept with no basis in reality. This is basic Hume. All we can work with is inductive and abductive reasoning, neither of which is sufficient for a proof.