Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
..explanations that don't explain anything..
You should prove, my explanation doesn't explain anything.

Every theory is defined by at least one implication, which defines it's causality arrow. Every implication consist of pair of postulates, which are required to be inconsistent mutually, or they could be replaced by single one and whole theory would become a tautology. In this way, every logical theory is based on inconsistency in thinking - or it couldn't exist at all. And this inconsistency would always manifest itself in less or distant perspective by appearance of tautological theorems in theory.

From which sentence my explanation has become incomprehensible for you?