Well, I constructed the question that way for a number of
   reasons: a) our current fascination with computer modelling of
   everything. ["it's all math" / "it's all algorithms"] b) our
   current obsession with logic-as-fundamental c) our current
   obsession with linear cause-effect d) our analogizing EVERYTHING
   complicated to computer metaphors generally. e) a common
   hot-button reaction to the mere mention of the word "God" (so
   much so that I avoid using the word most of the time - people
   fall right into their scripts). and... I think that's what I
   wanted to find out: Squish them together. Put it out there. See
   what happens. I _don't_ see logic as fundamental. Nor do I see
   perfections in anything really. I don't see mathematics as a
   basis for reality - like with logic, it's a nice modelling tool
   that's effective, but effectiveness does not equal truth - it
   equals effectiveness. So, that's the 'gist' of it. I wanted to
   see if anybody would follow their normal scripts on hot-button
   topics. I wanted to see what creative, original thinking might
   emerge and I wanted the challenges of trying to understand other
   people's points of view and reconcile them with my own, whatever
   that may be. == Yes. They are all of the time. Just look around
   you. Contradictions are the norm in life, not logical
   resolutions. == Consider the fundamental uniqueness of things.
   These patterns we discover are tendencies. But they're sloppy.
   Imprecise. When they work it's under tightly controlled
   circumstances. == You give me a thought experiment. A question
   about a square. Ok, what's the constraints? Problem: squares
   don't exist. So one constraint is that I must work with the
   assumption that they do. Where do they exist? Platonic realm?
   There is no platonic realm. Squares are fictional. Can you see
   the issue? == You have thing you ascribe as Universal truths.
   Laws. They can't be violated. If I violate these laws, I cannot
   form a proof. I must believe in a Platonic realm that cannot be
   empirically verified in order to work with this thought
   experiment. I don't believe it exists. You have your rules set
   ahead of time. Fixed for you. They're platonic. No
   contradictions allowed by default. How can I prove a
   contradiction using a system that allows for no contradictions?
   I can't because the laws you use will always come first and they
   don't allow for them. In short, what's called a logic trap. ==
   This is the system you're using:
   [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-world_assumption - here
   is how I see it: You can know what you know. But you don't know
   what's outside of what you know. If your system operates with a
   closed world assumption, it will be a complete world unto
   itself, but it will not encompass everything. It can't. It will
   always be limited. Useful? yes. Limited? Definitely. == I can't
   say much about that but I'll speak for myself, such as self may
   or may not be - my will ignores most of everything that comes at
   me. Sensory overload. I think on another discussion, I appear to
   be either/both/neither/other on the autistic spectrum or a nice
   sociopath, except sociopathy is outdated. Even nothing isn't
   conclusive. ==

References

   Visible links
   1. https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FClosed-world_assumption&h=iAQGUKIbH