Ask a logician about circular logic and they will tell you it is a fallacy. But, to me, this is an oversimplification. It holds as a fallacy when used in isolation, but when there are feedback loops, circular logic can indeed be used to produce matter from the illusions created by circular logic, or circular reasoning as Wikipedia calls it. Of course, the logicians are right in that circular logic is illusory, but that does not make it useless. Math has imaginary numbers already, why not formalize imaginary logical structures? Society has been running off half baked theories that are consistently revised since we started chasing our crazy half baked ideas. And it has clearly led to great advances. But, knowing that today’s brilliant idea will be tomorrows useful, but discarded broken theory, shouldn’t we attempt to understand the phenomenon? There are small errors in everything, and engineers design by just allowing enough tolerance. But knowing how much tolerance is needed is considered an art, and many would argue it can’t really be a hard science. If you look at Gödel’s work with the glasses of illusions as false, they have a point. Any theory consistent with existing theories will not “complete” (finish, as in “we’ve solved it, there are no more theories”) all the theories, as long as the set of theories is past a certain level of complexity. And that level of complexity exists everywhere. Out best hope is to predict as much as we can, and if a hurricane hits or lightening strikes, all bets are off. Butterflies are flapping their wings all the time. Sure, what we know works 99.999% of the time, but that’s still 1.33 days a year. Luckily, there’s a lot of things with even higher reliability, but machines breaking and needing repaired, or rebooted is common. 99.99999…% wears out pretty quickly when a processor is operating at 3 GHz (3,000,000,000 operations per second), or 94,670,208,000,000,000 in a year. That’s right, 94 quadrillion times. To get that down to 2.59 failures per day you need 99.9999999999999% reliability. I think you get the point. However, when Gödel’s work is looked at with consideration of the power of shared illusions, and his proof that there will always be a true statement that can not be proved, one can see a justification for accepting the premise of circular logic in a limited capacity. Much theory is fairly secure in predicting results, but theories are just that, theories. Sure, they all break down at some point, but when the illusion fails, the products of the illusion still remain.