Logic, illogic and alogic

[Lee]

I don't think a proper logic thread was ever started so here it is...


Logic, if followed explicitly eventually halts. No inference system follows explicit rules all the way down (forever) at some point, something just *is*, it just *does it* without any logical explanation. This is the problem when discussing the concept of God, how can logical rules be applied because at some point things just *are* and if God exists then God is that point. If God does not exist then that point at which logic fails to explain anything further are the fundamentals of maths and the basic laws of quantum dynamics.

You may question this, what happens if there is something beyond quantum mechanics? Some extra layer of study that science is yet to discover? It’s a valid question but one that simply recreates the original problem – What logical process created these newly found fundamentals of the universe? The problem will repeat forever………..it would end up being turtles all the way down!

Anything that is on these very edges of the possibilities in the universe must be considered alogical because no logical process can explain their existence without that explanation being alogical itself.

This leaves out the even bigger problem of human application of logic, which can be both be flawed and hence illogical or can be logical but still untrue. A logical sentence can follow the rules of logic and still be untrue without necessarily being an illogical comment…….have you never said the words “I can see the logic in what you are saying, but”?

Well this is what I think and I can't think of an argument that betters it....essentially I think that logic requires something alogical to kick the process off!

please reply or prove me otherwise :)

[heeroyuy]

It's called an axiom. Look into epistemology, axiometry(sp?), and finally the foundation problem of math. Also, look into goedell's(sp?) 2nd theorum, which basicly says within a given mathematical (or logical) system, there are things which we cannot prove without going to another system, which thereby means that we introduce new uncertainties which we have to go to another system to...you get the idea. Not really a new idea, just a fact :)

The problem is that most axioms aren't truly self evident, but simply self defined. One could claim that math is an a priori truth and thereby self evident, but that won't hold much water really.

I personally love the people who claim to deny all axioms, that no axioms exist. Well, didn't you just create one? heh.

[Lee]

What I said, but far better....thanks for clarifying :)

The main point of my post was to show that somethings cannot be explained by logic, some had claimed that everything was logical or illogical.

edit: I found this = http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html Godel's incompleteness theorum.

[Vagabond]

Oh god. This is going to be a long, long thread...

[MacGuffin]

I got some popcorn Vaga!

[Lee]

I got some popcorn Vaga!

I don't think your ever without popcorn recently.

[MacGuffin]

The prefixes "a-" and "il-" often can be used interchangeably for "not". Here, however, we are using "a-" for its other meaning: without.

Illogical: not logical (violates logic)

Alogical: without logic (logic not applicable)

[Trolsk]

Kurt Gödel proved that there are limits to what we can know, and logic doesn't play without reliable premises. Therefore alogical phenomena can't be ruled out.

[n0mad]

I'm myself a math student (God knows what I will be next year) and I always considered that though mathematics and physics explain a lot, they always halted at some point. I believe that this point will move indefinitely, thus, universe is infinitely complex.
Anyway, back to the topic. Yes, every scientifical study must lie on top of some axioms that are intuitively comprehended and cannot be defined. How one defines definition?
I tried to start this discussion earlier in some other threads, but I was left ignored.

Trivia: Set Of All Sets does not exist because thereis another set that contains all sets AND Set Of All Sets.

Edit:
Just wanted to add this:
- logic exists
- illogic does not exist
- alogic - don't know, CAN'T know, and don't care

[MacGuffin]

(God knows what I will be next year)
sounds alogical....

[n0mad]

sounds alogical....
Yes it does. Sound alogical, I mean. But u know, if it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, it still may be Roseanne (yeah, that far behind are we here, in Croatia... watching Roseanne... pathetic).

[Apostasius]

Edit:
Just wanted to add this:
- logic exists
- illogic does not exist
- alogic - don't know, CAN'T know, and don't care

Could you explain what you mean by "illogic does not exist"?

In my limited understanding:
Illogical (via Webster)
1 : not observing the principles of logic
2 : devoid of logic : senseless

What about a square circle?

How about senseless?:
Organic emotion gentically guides taco-space whiplash.

[Apostasius]

The prefixes "a-" and "il-" often can be used interchangeably for "not". Here, however, we are using "a-" for its other meaning: without.

Illogical: not logical (violates logic)

Alogical: without logic (logic not applicable)

Isn't alogic just another expression of definition two (as I described above)? I've seen prelogical used in a similar context.

[n0mad]

Could you explain what you mean by "illogic does not exist"?
That is just my oppinion. Logic describes reality we live in, alogic is beyond our realm, and nothing is illogical, thus, illogic (defined as something that defies logic) does not exist.

[MacGuffin]

Isn't alogic just another expression of definition two (as I described above)? I've seen prelogical used in a similar context.
Yes, but we are using alogical precisely because you can define illogical in two different ways.

Many times in casual conversation one uses illogical as a synonym of alogical. To avoid confusion when discussing matters of philosophy and the like, we use alogical. Otherwise when someone says illogical you don't know whether they mean you have made a mistake in your logic, or logic does not apply.

[MacGuffin]

That is just my oppinion. Logic describes reality we live in, alogic is beyond our realm, and nothing is illogical, thus, illogic (defined as something that defies logic) does not exist.
You can do this, I think mgbradsh does something similar by defining logical as the natural world or something (?).

But you are muddying the waters. We are using logic as a system of rational thinking. A method. A flaw in using that method gives rise to something illogical. Saying the methods of logical thinking do not apply gives rise to something being alogical.

[n0mad]

If u define illogic as a flaw in logical reasoning (as most did), then it exists. But if u define illogic as something that defies logic (not just logical reasoning), then I believe it doesn't exist.

[Vagabond]

I got some popcorn Vaga! That's what I was afraid of. Not without good reason apparently :D

Time to revive the moral-immoral-amoral thread...http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[MacGuffin]

If u define illogic as a flaw in logical reasoning (as most did), then it exists. But if u define illogic as something that defies logic (not just logical reasoning), then I believe it doesn't exist.
That is correct. We have just broken illogical into two more precise categories.

[Lee]

That is correct. We have just broken illogical into two more precise categories.

One is subjective to the individual and the other an objective property of the universe.

Subjective illogic
Universal illogic

is one of them impossible?

[booyalab]

Lately, I've noticed some people trying to make parallels with "amoral" and "alogic". I dont think it's correct to do that. When amoral is used, it's applied to people and their entire lifestyles. When alogical is used it is applied to single concepts or isolated words.

[MacGuffin]

One is subjective to the individual and the other an objective property of the universe.

Subjective illogic
Universal illogic

is one of them is impossible?
That deserves a whole other thread. You begin to get into whether there is an objective reality or not.

[n0mad]

Lately, I've noticed some people trying to make parallels with "amoral" and "alogic". I dont think it's correct to do that. When amoral is used, it's applied to people and their entire lifestyles. When alogical is used it is applied to single concepts or words.
Of course. Morality is (as most INTPs believe) creation of humankind and itself is not applicable to bigger sets. Logic IS reality we dwell in.
Hmmm, how should we call logical reality and alogical one (if there is one) together?

[booyalab]

Of course. Morality is (as most INTPs believe) creation of humankind and itself is not applicable to bigger sets. Logic IS reality we dwell in.
Hmmm, how should we call logical reality and alogical one (if there is one) together?

There is no question that part of reality is alogical.

In fact, I've said this a billion times on here it seems, but more of reality is alogical than logical or illogical. When anything is taken out of a logical framework, it is alogical. Alogical is not even that common of a word BECAUSE it encompasses most things.

.<--alogical
/<--alogical
Poop<--alogical
I like blue<--alogical
duck wearing a hat<--alogical
etc.

[Apostasius]

What is the function of rationality or irrationality within the framework of logic, illogic, and alogic? It seems that if something is alogical, it is outside the scope of rational inquiry and hence irrational. Given the bifurcation of the semantics of illogic, does this change the conception of reason as traditionally conceived? Or are we left with the Lockean conception of things being in accordance, contrary, or above reason? Perhaps this is a non-issue?

[booyalab]

What is the function of rationality or irrationality within the framework of logic, illogic, and alogic? It seems that if something is alogical, it is outside the scope of rational inquiry and hence irrational. Given the bifurcation of the semantics of illogic, does this change the conception of reason as traditionally conceived? Or are we left with the Lockean conception of things being in accordance, contrary, or above reason? Perhaps this is a non-issue?

rationality is less technical of a term than logic...there's Jung's definitions and the more vague definition of just having mental clarity..and the less vague mathematical def.. and I bet there are at least 5 other definitions represented among people here ..so we'd be more likely to disagree on a definition and a discussion would be more futile, I think.

By the way, there's "arational" too...that has more philosophical connotations though.

[Phenylethylene]

My own view is that the universe is inherently logical and is incapable of producing an illogical or alogical result. However, we can produce a sub-construct within the universe construct that does produce an illogical or alogical result in regards to itself or our expectations. The sub-construct may fail due to flawed design (i.e. because of logical errors or incomplete data) and we may not understand why, but from the logical point of view of the universe, the failure was imminent, understandable, and explainable.

(Anyone familiar with Turing Machines? As I type this, I imagine a TM [sub-construct] within a TM [universe construct] or a TM [observer] analyzing another TM [sub-construct].)

[MacGuffin]

My own view is that the universe is inherently logical and is incapable of producing an illogical or alogical result.
That is a pretty nice alogical belief. You take that on faith or what?

[Phenylethylene]

It's a construct within a construct, the universe does not care whether I am correct or not and it does not affect logical principles of the universe. (Edited for clarity, I hope.)

[MacGuffin]

It's a construct within a construct, the universe does not care whether I am correct or not and it does not affect physical principles.
Still alogical.

[booyalab]

The funny thing is that one of the main rules of logic necessitates the existance of *booming, echoing voice* The Alogical . The conclusion of a logical argument cannot support the validity of it's premise.

[Phenylethylene]

Still alogical.

Which is permissible with a sub-construct.

[MacGuffin]

The funny thing is that one of the main rules of logic necessitates the existance of *booming, echoing voice* The Alogical . The conclusion of a logical argument cannot support the validity of it's premise.
Yes. At some point you have to take something as an axiom. I'm not saying Phenylethylene is wrong (I actually agree with most of what was said), but that you can't postulate your belief in the nature of the universe as something provable and logical.

[booyalab]

Yes. At some point you have to take something as an axiom. I'm not saying Phenylethylene is wrong (I actually agree with most of what was said), but that you can't postulate your belief in the nature of the universe as something provable and logical.

GOOD! so we can put this stupid topic to rest already!!!!!! :rant:

[MacGuffin]

GOOD! so we can put this stupid topic to rest already!!!!!! :rant:
Don't go all J on us now. I still have a lot of popcorn.

[booyalab]

Don't go all J on us now. I still have a lot of popcorn.

heh. At least I'm not an SJ

[indie]

Logics will get you from A to B, Imagination will take you everywhere."

I agree, Albert. Logic is highly overrated; arguments based on logic tend to be the most uninspiring.

[n0mad]

I had idea just now (accompanied by Mary Jane), that the wholeness, as I call it, is infinite and chaotic. The universe we comprehend is part of that wholeness where, just by accident, some rules exist (rules of logic).
Kewl, ha? :)

[MacGuffin]

I had idea just now (accompanied by Mary Jane), that the [b]wholeness[\b], as I call it, is infinite and chaotic. The universe we comprehend is part of that [b]wholeness[\b] where, just by accident, some rules exist (rules of logic).
Kewl, ha? :)
Sounds like a variation of the bubble theory.

[n0mad]

Bubble theory?
I'm to stoned to google it. Please, tell me what it is.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

I'm to stoned to google it.

Pfff. Never stopped me before.

[MacGuffin]

Here is a decent summary:


The Bubble Universe / Andre Linde's Self Creating Universe

These are the theories discussed in class. The bubble universe concept involves creation of universes from the quantum foam of a "parent universe." On very small scales, the foam is frothing due to energy fluctuations. These fluctuations may create tiny bubbles and wormholes. If the energy fluctuation is not very large, a tiny bubble universe may form, experience some expansion like an inflating balloon, and then contract and disappear from existence. However, if the energy fluctuation is greater than a particular critical value, a tiny bubble universe forms from the parent universe, experiences long-term expansion, and allows matter and large-scale galactic structures to form.

The "self-creating" in Andre Linde's self-creating universe theory stems from the concept that each bubble or inflationary universe will sprout other bubble universes, which in turn, sprout more bubble universes. The universe we live in has a set of physical constants that seem tailor-made for the evolution of living things.


If you are smoking too much j to use google, it might be time to cut back!

[mgb]

OK. This should do it for an explanation.

I am going to make the distinction between alogic and logic. Illogic fits within the realm of logic as its opposition.

Conceptually everything in the universe is alogical.

Contextually everything in the universe is logical/illogical.

booyalab was defining things as alogical. She is right. In a universe by itself a period doesn't make much sense (I can't wait for the "I've said that a billion times" comment, you haven't you implied it) and would be alogical. Once you put that period in some sort of context, like a sentence it enters the realm of logic, where you put it in the sentence defines whether or not it is logical or illogical.

I think that is where the discrepency is coming in on this debate, arguing from two different planes.

God even becomes logical/illogical when you put it in context. Like say One's thread in rants and raves.

[n0mad]

Yeah, something like that (reffering to bubble theory)! Is that affirmed theory or just a farfetched hypothesis?
If I were to cut back, I wouldn't thought of this, wouldn't I? lol

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, something like that (reffering to bubble theory)! Is that affirmed theory or just a farfetched hypothesis?
If I were to cut back, I wouldn't thought of this, wouldn't I? lol
It is a fairly respectable theory, but there are other "hotter" theories out there right now.

[n0mad]

This one in particular explains (to me at least) a lot. I.E. why universe started to expand, etc.

[SensEye]

God even becomes logical/illogical when you put it in context. Like say One's thread in rants and raves.Since any discussion without context is pointless, can we agree the word alogical should never again appear in this discussion forum? Alternatively, we could make a new subforum "pointless babbling" in which people could use alogic to their hearts content.

Note: I think rants and raves serves a cathartic purpose that is both contextual and logical.

[MacGuffin]

Since any discussion without context is pointless, can we agree the word alogical should never again appear in this discussion forum?
No.

[booyalab]

God even becomes logical/illogical when you put it in context. Like say One's thread in rants and raves.

I've said THIS a billion times, but there is no suitable context that exists categorically or empirically in which to put God as the focal point of a logical argument. You could however say something like: God is a cow. All cows are red. God is red. This in no way makes God 'logical' or 'illogical', the focal point is alleged attributes of God (also the absurdity).

[tragula]

Interesting discussion. A bit above my head perhaps...

But, what I want to point out is that there are some more down to earth issues. Some people may use the word allogical simply to describe behaviors that are based on instinct.

So when we do things for rational conscious reasons we are behaving logically.

When we do things because of conscious rational reasons that are based on faulty reasoning, then we are behaving illogically.

And when we can't quite explain why we do something, but we feel strongly compelled to anyway, then we are behaving allogicaly.

[Lee]

As I say there are two distinct ways of talking about logic, both from a subjective human view and from a universal principale of the universe view.

THe confusion between the two and th many different subjective views that exist have plagued all discussion of logic.

I think godel's 2nd theorum says a lot about the universal sense of logic which is necassarily incomplete.

[songbird36]

Well given recently controversies I wasn't going to wade into this debate, but I was reading a passage today from my Bible (Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy") that I think summarises quite well the condundrum philosophers have had over the past 2000 years since the inception of logic as a philosophical system, in determining the limits of deductive logic versus induction. Here it is (page 209 of the latest reprint of the book, for anyone who wants to look it up):

"Over-estimation of deduction.

The Greeks in general attached more importance to deduction as a source of knowledge than modern philosophers do. In this respect Aristotle was less at fault than Plato; he repeatedly admitted the importance of induction, and he devoted considerable attention to the question: how do we know the first premisses from which deduction must start?...We shall agree that Mr Smith (say) is mortal, and we may loosely say that we know this because we know that all men are mortal. But what we really know is not "all men are mortal"; we know rather something like "all men born more than 150 years ago are mortal, and so are almost all men born more than 100 years ago". This is our reason for thinking that Mr Smith will die. But this argument is an induction, not a deduction. It has less cogency than a deduction, and yields only a probability, not a certainty; but on the other hand it gives *new* knowledge, which deduction does not. All the important inferences outside logic and pure mathematics are inductive, not deductive; the only exceptions are law and theology, each of which derives its first principles from an unquestionable text (viz the statute books or the scriptures"

[songbird36]

Lee I'm also going to stick my head on the guillotine and volunteer a view about the distinction between "immoral" and "a-moral" (and whether in fact there is one).

I believe there is a *theoretical* distinction but not a practical distinction.

The theoretical distinction is this. A person who is "a-moral" does not subscribe to any moral system whatsoever (they do not consider that morality of any description applies to them).

A person who is "immoral" on the other hand, subscribes to a moral system such as Christianity or Buddhism, or a set of personal values, but acts in a way which is contrary to these.

In practice, the behaviour exhibited by both types will look similar to the outsider.

[Edmond Zedo]

Your induction/deduction jumble is an example of the difference between a mathematical theory and a mathematical law. A theory has never been wrong; A law can never be wrong.

[cjs55]

More specifically its talking about something like this (sorry, another quote):

"Logic, too, also rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world, e.g., on the assumption that there are equal things, that the same thing is identical at different points in time: but this science arose as a result of the opposite belief (that such things actually exist in the real world). And it is the same with mathematics, which would certainly never have arisen if it had been understood from the beginning that there is no such thing in nature as a perfectly straight line, a true circle, and absolute measure."
-Nietzsche

[songbird36]

This is how Russell defines *induction* as a philosophical principle for establishing existence:

"The principle of induction, as applied to causation, says that if A has been found very often accompanied or followed by B, and no instance is known of A not being accompanied or followed by B, then it is probable that in the next occasion on which A is observed it will be accompanied or followed by B. If the principle is to be adequate, a sufficient number of instances must make the probability not far short of certainty"

Applied to a theory it works (as Bacon says) as follows:

"He wished to discover the nature of heat, which he supposed (rightly) to consist of rapid irregular motions of the small parts of bodies. His method was to make lists of hot bodies, cold bodies, and bodies of varying degrees of heat. He hoped that these lists would show some characteristic always present in hot bodies and absent in cold bodies, and present in varying degrees in bodies of different degrees of heat. By this method he expected to arrive at general laws. A suggested law should be tested by being applied in new circumstances; if it worked in these circumstances it was to that extent confirmed".

Applied to what Lee originally posted, this suggests that some basic premisses can be established inductively (and indeed have to be) otherwise there is an endless backwards logical chain of causation linking premises back to each other ad infinitum, so that the original truth of the first premiss will never be able to be established.

[Architectonic]

It seems I always miss the most exciting threads, like this one.


alogical?

[flan2dave]

In what terms does one evaluate premises/axioms? You couldn't say "that was a logical choice of axioms." What drives their acceptance?

[Lee]

In what terms does one evaluate premises/axioms? You couldn't say "that was a logical choice of axioms." What drives their acceptance?

Axioms have no explanation and are necassary to our understanding of everything else. I think thier acceptance can only come about by shared experience, in a sense you can use logic to prove a axiom, simply observe the universe and logically trace back explanations until you can trace back no further and something just *is*, no explanation needed or given. People however will disagree, which relates to the point of human application of logic and our limitations.

Argument can take place over specific axioms but thier existence is undeniable.

I personally love the people who claim to deny all axioms, that no axioms exist. Well, didn't you just create one? heh.

[n0mad]

Axiom set is considered consistent if the don't contradict themselves mutually, if no paradoxes occur, and if they describe all the aspects of theory sufficiently.

[Lee]

Axiom set is considered consistent if the don't contradict themselves mutually, if no paradoxes occur, and if they describe all the aspects of theory sufficiently.

However this requires humans to attempt to logically deduce an axioms outcome and so differences of opinion through the limitations of human thought and understanding creep in.

So we are left knowing that there are axioms and agreeing on most of them, but never having a full picture or full agreement, even theories that work and make logical sense are not always correct or/and might later be improved.

[n0mad]

Of course, but Goedel did some fantastic work considering axioms and mathematical logic in general, and it is proven that most mathematical theory are self sufficient and need not to be changed.

[Lee]

Lee I'm also going to stick my head on the guillotine and volunteer a view about the distinction between "immoral" and "a-moral" (and whether in fact there is one).

I believe there is a *theoretical* distinction but not a practical distinction.

The theoretical distinction is this. A person who is "a-moral" does not subscribe to any moral system whatsoever (they do not consider that morality of any description applies to them).

A person who is "immoral" on the other hand, subscribes to a moral system such as Christianity or Buddhism, or a set of personal values, but acts in a way which is contrary to these.

In practice, the behaviour exhibited by both types will look similar to the outsider.

But could an amoral person also appear to be moral to the outsider? would an amoral person act totally out of self-interest? it could be argued that morality is a adaptation of natural selection that ultimately only exists to serve the self-interest of the individual. If this is the case an amoral person could behave in a moral manner all thier lives simply because it fitted thier self-interest within the enviroment where they were.

Is there any difference, are we all amoral by defualt and only adaptation to enviroment creates morality because it is beneficial to the survival chances of the individual.....is this why there are so many conflicting views of morality, because there are so many different enviroments in which to adapt.

[Lee]

Of course, but Goedel did some fantastic work considering axioms and mathematical logic in general, and it is proven that most mathematical theory are self sufficient and need not to be changed.

Agreed. :)

[MacGuffin]

But could an amoral person also appear to be moral to the outsider? would an amoral person act totally out of self-interest?
Yes to both. An amoral person can appear to be acting morally even when acting totally in his/her self-interest.

An amoral person often will purposely appear moral in order to manipulate those around them (think of con artists and televangelists).

[n0mad]

Did evolution made us acting in self interest, interest of our specie, interest of planet? Or do we act in interest of all universe?
I latter os correct (and probably is), moral seem to be universal concept out of our perception of it.

[Lee]

Yes to both. An amoral person can appear to be acting morally even when acting totally in his/her self-interest.

An amoral person often will purposely appear moral in order to manipulate those around them (think of con artists and televangelists).

Is this not what we all do in our own way, those who are conscious of this are considered amoral and those who are unconscious of this are considered moral.

Maybe morality is just a facade, an allusion that natural selection creates within any social species. But the unconscious mind is no fool and exists to ensure this duplicity in human nature.

[Lee]

Did evolution made us acting in self interest, interest of our specie, interest of planet? Or do we act in interest of all universe?
I latter os correct (and probably is), moral seem to be universal concept out of our perception of it.

Act in the interest of the universe? does the universe have interests? :huh:

Our genes are replicators and recreate as many of themselves as possible, the ones that were better at it survived and the ones that didn't perished. Evolution works in the interest of individual genes....you could say that this ultimately results in genes acting in the interest of the species but a gene simply wishes (is made to) to replicate and survive....it does not necassarily care if half the human race was wiped out, as long as the gene pool remainded sufficiently intact. "benefit of the human race" very vague and subjective question.

[Dman]

There is no question that part of reality is alogical.

In fact, I've said this a billion times on here it seems, but more of reality is alogical than logical or illogical. When anything is taken out of a logical framework, it is alogical. Alogical is not even that common of a word BECAUSE it encompasses most things.

.<--alogical
/<--alogical
Poop<--alogical
I like blue<--alogical
duck wearing a hat<--alogical
etc.

Ah, but “how” do you take anything out of a logical framework? Cannot a logical framework apply towards everything? You can only “take something out of logical framework” conceptually, which is itself a logical process. In no way does this mean logic does not apply, just because you “say” you’ve taken it out of a logical process.

Plus, a lot of people seem to confuse human lack of understanding as beyond logic, but of course this is nonsense. In fact, how about we just associate the term “alogical” as meaning “nonsense” (i.e. illogical)?


.<--alogical (no. that period was placed there when you typed it on your keyboard. It is also a character used for purposes of communication. Logical)
/<--alogical (no. same as above)
Poop<--alogical (no. a natural product of an animal’s digestion of food. logical)
I like blue<--alogical (no. your brain has a biological reason for associating the color blue with a pleasurable emotion, which is the product of the brain and it’s processes, all of which can be logically explained (although perhaps not fully understood.)
duck wearing a hat<--alogical (no. someone put the hat on the duck, while the reasons may have been illogical, or even logical, it is still logical why the duck is wearing a hat. The “concept” of a duck wearing a hat is logical as well, since it was thought up in your brain, which again occurs by a logical/illogical process.)
etc. ( another term of communication. logical)

[Lee]

Ah, but “how” do you take anything out of a logical framework? Cannot a logical framework apply towards everything? You can only “take something out of logical framework” conceptually, which is itself a logical process. In no way does this mean logic does not apply, just because you “say” you’ve taken it out of a logical process.

Plus, a lot of people seem to confuse human lack of understanding as beyond logic, but of course this is nonsense. In fact, how about we just associate the term “alogical” as meaning “nonsense” (i.e. illogical)

I agree that booyalabs examples were flawed, however logic requires axioms (as heeroyuy kindly informed me) or basic premises to work from. An axiom cannot be explained logically, that is how an axiom is discovered, because the further a inference system is followed logically it eventually halts, eventually logic fails to provide an answer, the phenomona just *is*. This axiom cannot be considered illogical because it is necassary and logic requires it's existence, and so an axiom can only be considered alogical because any reason for it's existence exists outside of the logic of the universe.

Any further human discovery that discovers logical reasoning behind an axiom simply creates a new axiom.

[songbird36]

Dman if you read the quotes from Russell's book that I posted, you will see that logic relies on a set of "premisses" (or assumptions if you prefer). Premises operare like this:
All A's are B's
Some B's are C's

Therefore some A's are C's (logical conclusion)

The difficulty is that to prove the premisses themselves you then have to go back in an endless logical chain, which is unhelpful.

Hence most modern philospohers believe that some basic premisses must be proved inductively (via inference from experience - or "axoims" if you prefer that term).

One example of such a premiss might be: "the universe exists"

[Dman]

Dman if you read the quotes from Russell's book that I posted, you will see that logic relies on a set of "premisses" (or assumptions if you prefer). Premises operare like this:
All A's are B's
Some B's are C's

Therefore some A's are C's (logical conclusion)

The difficulty is that to prove the premisses themselves you then have to go back in an endless logical chain, which is unhelpful.

Hence most modern philospohers believe that some basic premisses must be proved inductively (via inference from experience - or "axoims" if you prefer that term).

One example of such a premiss might be: "the universe exists"

If you are seeking ultimate truth, then yes, it is difficult. But regardless of the feasibility or difficulty, that does not define it as outside the boundaries of logic. Assumptions themselves are logically or illogically arrived at, and based upon those assumptions, further logical or illogical assumptions and conclusions can be drawn. This applies to axioms as well. If you wish to examine or challenge an axiom for absolute truth, you can go back further and further. But at some point it becomes immaterial, and the truth, although perhaps not known absolutely (due to HUMAN limitations), applies consistently enough to fit within a logical model.

I do not see the connection between axioms and “alogical”; the statement that logic “halts” or “eventually fails to provide an answer” is once again simply the limitations of the human brain. Not in any way does this result in “outside the boundaries of logic”, simply outside the boundaries of human understanding.

Again, you can only take something “outside the boundaries of logic” conceptually, thus you are merely pretending that logic does not or cannot apply.

[songbird36]

OK perhaps this distinction will make it clearer then.

Logic is capable of proving only things that must *necessarily* be true (following on from logical premisses).

Inductive reasoning establishes the existence of things which simply *are* (not because they have to be, but because they simply *exist*).

[Dman]

OK perhaps this distinction will make it clearer then.

Logic is capable of proving only things that must *necessarily* be true (following on from logical premisses).

Inductive reasoning establishes the existence of things which simply *are* (not because they have to be, but because they simply *exist*).

Yes, that does make it clear - clear that your statements are very alogical (using my definition of alogical). jk!

The process of inductive reasoning stems from taking a logical POV. Not seeing how this can be applied as "alogical". It is a process that is logical in and of itself, so how can you say it is outside the boundaries of logic...

[MacGuffin]

Again, you can only take something “outside the boundaries of logic” conceptually, thus you are merely pretending that logic does not or cannot apply.
Were are not pretending, it is fact. Something alogical may become logical at some future point. But you cannot just take the leap of faith that everything can be proven or disproven logically until you actually do so. To believe (without reason or proof) that "everything" falls under logic's realm is in fact alogical itself.

[songbird36]

Yes, that does make it clear - clear that your statements are very alogical (using my definition of alogical). jk!

The process of inductive reasoning stems from taking a logical POV. Not seeing how this can be applied as "alogical". It is a process that is logical in and of itself, so how can you say it is outside the boundaries of logic...

I suggest you do some reading (either on the net or from a book) about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning. Otherwise it's difficult to discuss the issue sensibly.

[songbird36]

I want the fishy back - this guy looks like Winston Churchill with a grudge..

[Lee]

Winston killed the fishy....with that gun no less.

[Dman]

I suggest you do some reading (either on the net or from a book) about the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning. Otherwise it's difficult to discuss the issue sensibly.

From Google:

Definition of inductive reasoning - process of reasoning from particular facts to a generalization.

Definition of deductive reasoning - inference by reasoning from generals to particulars.


Ok, we're sensible now.

So how does inductive reasoning fall outside the boundaries of logic? Sounds pretty logical to me.

[Dman]

Were are not pretending, it is fact. Something alogical may become logical at some future point. But you cannot just take the leap of faith that everything can be proven or disproven logically until you actually do so. To believe (without reason or proof) that "everything" falls under logic's realm is in fact alogical itself.

How dare you call me alogical! jk.

Nothing needs to be proven or disproven to be logical or illogical. It either is or it isn't logical. It may appear illogical because it is not understood, when in fact it is logical. Don't need reason or proof, it either is or it isn't. Something either exists or it doesn't, there is no a-existence. Same with logic.

How's your popcorn stash?

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Something either exists or it doesn't, there is no a-existence.


There is no spoon.

[Lee]

How dare you call me alogical! jk.

Nothing needs to be proven or disproven to be logical or illogical. It either is or it isn't logical. It may appear illogical because it is not understood, when in fact it is logical. Don't need reason or proof, it either is or it isn't. Something either exists or it doesn't, there is no a-existence. Same with logic.

How's your popcorn stash?

You are confusing existence with logic, they are not the same, existence implies everything whether right, wrong, up, down, left, right, this sentence, you, your computer...everything etc.

Logic is a necassarily incomplete system, a series of events that can be predictably measured and understood, cause and affect, A happens so B , if B happens then C cannot happen etc. But logic requires basic premises with which to begin, it is irrelevent what these premises are or what ones humans have yet to learn because it will always provoke the same question, one that cannot be answered by logic because it is the root of logic, the cause, it is like asking a human to understand his own mind *fully*. He cannot do it because his only tool for doing so is that same mind.

It is as Godel said "incomplete".

[MacGuffin]

How dare you call me alogical! jk.

Nothing needs to be proven or disproven to be logical or illogical. It either is or it isn't logical. It may appear illogical because it is not understood, when in fact it is logical. Don't need reason or proof, it either is or it isn't. Something either exists or it doesn't, there is no a-existence. Same with logic.

How's your popcorn stash?
I got a lot of popcorn!

It just seems like you are missing the point. Proving something is the point of logic.

You are taking the belief that everything can be proven logically. That is a belief, not a reasoned law. No different than those that believe in God.

[MacGuffin]

[munches popcorn]

Did I win?

[songbird36]

I got a lot of popcorn!

It just seems like you are missing the point. Proving something is the point of logic.

You are taking the belief that everything can be proven logically. That is a belief, not a reasoned law. No different than those that believe in God.

I think you should give up (as I have now). Some people don't seem to be able to properly grasp the limits of a logical system, and they wrongly insist that it applies (or is capable of applying) to everything.

[Architectonic]

Logic is a necassarily incomplete system, a series of events that can be predictably measured and understood, cause and affect, A happens so B , if B happens then C cannot happen etc. But logic requires basic premises with which to begin, it is irrelevent what these premises are or what ones humans have yet to learn because it will always provoke the same question, one that cannot be answered by logic because it is the root of logic, the cause, it is like asking a human to understand his own mind *fully*. He cannot do it because his only tool for doing so is that same mind.

It is as Godel said "incomplete".

Logic itself is just a tool. So logic itself necessarily cannot explain anything.

[songbird36]

Logic itself is just a tool. So logic itself necessarily cannot explain anything.

Well there's a whole bunch of people on here who think it can.

I won't name names....

[Crazy]

Logic does not explain anything, it only leads us to the explanation.

[songbird36]

Logic does not explain anything, it only leads us to the explanation.

Well that's not quite true either. Logic is capable of proving things that are *necessarily* true if the premisses which support the logical syllogism are accepted.

And the last part of that statement is important, because it means that logic can *prove* something which is actually false, if the premisses turn out also to be false.

It is thus an artificial system, that has only limited application and that must be used carefully and sensibly.

[Crazy]

Then the premise filtered through logic proves something, not logic itself.

[songbird36]

Nope - hey go back to the sexual deviants thread I prefer your logic on there..

lolol

[Geoff]

Well that's not quite true either. Logic is capable of proving things that are *necessarily* true if the premisses which support the logical syllogism are accepted.

And the last part of that statement is important, because it means that logic can *prove* something which is actually false, if the premisses turn out also to be false.

It is thus an artificial system, that has only limited application and that must be used carefully and sensibly.

I think you are at cross purposes with the logic argument as a construct. Logic as a thought system is a mechanism. The proving of a false result is an application of that mechanism. You are arguing for (or against) the results of the application of that mechanism in a real data set, I believe (if I read correctly) that Dman is arguing for the underlying construct itself. Logic as a system for understanding the universe is quite simply, unparalleled, and I am yet to see a clear example where it does not apply. It may be that we do not have enough data to apply the system (eg is there a god? logically we can not answer this question as we do not have enough data to test a premise), but I am still unconvinced there is anything that requires the system to be replaced with a mystical acceptance or faith.

I am still yet to see any reason why Dman is not correct (other than a suggestion we should go and read up due to our lack of education j/k)

-Geoff

[MacGuffin]

Logic as a system for understanding the universe is quite simply, unparalleled, and I am yet to see a clear example where it does not apply. It may be that we do not have enough data to apply the system (eg is there a god? logically we can not answer this question as we do not have enough data to test a premise), but I am still unconvinced there is anything that requires the system to be replaced with a mystical acceptance or faith.1) I have never arugued that logic should be replaced by mystical acceptance or faith. Logic has been the BEST system for understanding the universe for thousands of years.

2) When you do not have enough data to apply logic = logic does not apply. Something labeled as alogical now can become logical or illogical at a later time.

3) I suspect, anything outside the bounds of our universe will probably be alogical (like "God"). In fact, we may never be able to prove or disprove things existing outside the boundries of our universe.

[Lee]

Did logic create the universe? or did the universe create logic?

I say that the universe created logic.

[Geoff]

1) I have never arugued that logic should be replaced by mystical acceptance or faith. Logic has been the BEST system for understanding the universe for thousands of years.

2) When you do not have enough data to apply logic = logic does not apply. Something labeled as alogical now can become logical or illogical at a later time.

3) I suspect, anything outside the bounds of our universe will probably be alogical (like "God"). In fact, we may never be able to prove or disprove things existing outside the boundries of our universe.

All of this argues for a logical system being the constructed means for reasoning.

The existence of God is merely a premise over which we have not tested in full our understanding as a species, because we have not yet designed the test or measured enough date to form a law. All we have are theories, and no constantly accepted one. But nothing that strikes me as outside the bounds of logic.

The fact that we can not at present prove something with logic, merely means we have no test available. We can still reason using logic, using a hypothesis created in our minds. A what if scenario is fully valid using logistic constructions. Bringing this to a conclusion is what logic is not able to do for us *yet* (emphasis on this word) as we do not have access to the data we require.

Many many argue we do have access to enough data, and reach apposite conclusions for the existence of God (for example) but there is no commonly accepted theory, so we are not there *yet*.

-Geoff

[MacGuffin]

Did logic create the universe? or did the universe create logic?

I say that the universe creted logic.
I'd agree. A different universe with different physical laws....

[Geoff]

I'd agree. A different universe with different physical laws....

That's quite a logical viewpoint.

-Geoff

[Lee]

All of this argues for a logical system being the constructed means for reasoning.

The existence of God is merely a premise over which we have not tested in full our understanding as a species, because we have not yet designed the test or measured enough date to form a law. All we have are theories, and no constantly accepted one. But nothing that strikes me as outside the bounds of logic.

The fact that we can not at present prove something with logic, merely means we have no test available. We can still reason using logic, using a hypothesis created in our minds. A what if scenario is fully valid using logistic constructions. Bringing this to a conclusion is what logic is not able to do for us *yet* (emphasis on this word) as we do not have access to the data we require.

Many many argue we do have access to enough data, and reach apposite conclusions for the existence of God (for example) but there is no commonly accepted theory, so we are not there *yet*.

-Geoff

If logic is universal and applies to everything then (has no limits), it must be turtles all the way down....i.e. Forever, into infinite, never ending layers of reality and science.

[MacGuffin]

Many many argue we do have access to enough data, and reach apposite conclusions for the existence of God (for example) but there is no commonly accepted theory, so we are not there *yet*.
And what if they are wrong? What if this is all the data we will ever have on the existence of God?

Are you really arguing logic has no limits?

[songbird36]

I think you are at cross purposes with the logic argument as a construct. Logic as a thought system is a mechanism. The proving of a false result is an application of that mechanism. You are arguing for (or against) the results of the application of that mechanism in a real data set, I believe (if I read correctly) that Dman is arguing for the underlying construct itself. Logic as a system for understanding the universe is quite simply, unparalleled, and I am yet to see a clear example where it does not apply. It may be that we do not have enough data to apply the system (eg is there a god? logically we can not answer this question as we do not have enough data to test a premise), but I am still unconvinced there is anything that requires the system to be replaced with a mystical acceptance or faith.

I am still yet to see any reason why Dman is not correct (other than a suggestion we should go and read up due to our lack of education j/k)

-Geoff

Logic is capable only of proving things that must *necessarily* exist (i.e. things that are necessarily *caused* by other things). I think there is a set of phenomena that fall outside this, and that simply exist intrinsically (not by virtue of any necessary cause). God falls into this realm. First cause (logic) arguments for God don't work.

[Geoff]

And what if they are wrong? What if this is all the data we will ever have on the existence of God?

Are you really arguing logic has no limits?

I believe that potentially it has no limits. Currently it has some as we do not have the data to apply it to all questions. Just as 1000 years ago it was pointless to argue using logic as to why the sun rises over the horizon.

Logic gives a framework to answer any question. But the premise and data take time to be reasoned.

-Geoff

[Geoff]

Logic is capable only of proving things that must *necessarily* exist (i.e. things that are necessarily *caused* by other things). I think there is a set of phenomena that fall outside this, and that simply exist intrinsically (not by virtue of any necessary cause). God falls into this realm. First cause (logic) arguments for God don't work.

You mean, they dont work for you. If God joins the things that are commonly accepted as existing. For example, if there were proof in the same way that most people now accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun (both were once equally important questions). Are you going to refuse to believe? Why should anything not be driven by causality.

If you refuse to apply logic to the question, then what are you going to do if logic answers it for you (as over time it has to every other question now part of the accepted human experience). Would you have told people 1000 years ago that logic is incapable of answering the question as to whether the sun revolves around the earth? Give it time on the God question.

The mechanism for belief is no doubt as mechanically demonstrable as it is for perceiving the worlds effects. If you prod the right sector of a human's brain it perceives the colour blue, if you prod the right sector, it experiences all kinds of things... if you take the right drug (purely a mechanical process) the brain experiences enlightenment and sometimes divinity. Logic tells me that belief is simply a mechanism of the human brain like any other.
We dont understand it fully yet. Give the logical, scientific process, time on the belief question.

Have a little faith in the logic system to give a framework to reason any of the big questions...

-Geoff

[songbird36]

Due to its artificial nature it is better at establishing semantic truth, than existence.

[Dman]

You are confusing existence with logic, they are not the same, existence implies everything whether right, wrong, up, down, left, right, this sentence, you, your computer...everything etc.

Re-read my post. I was using existence in an analogy to logic. If that’s confusing, substitute existence with black and white. My point is that logic is akin to black or white, there is nothing outside the boundaries. Either black, or white, not gray. Logical, illogical, no alogical.


It just seems like you are missing the point. Proving something is the point of logic.

You are taking the belief that everything can be proven logically. That is a belief, not a reasoned law. No different than those that believe in God.

I disagree that “proving something is the point of logic”. If I take a hammer and smash it down on my hand, it injures me, and there is no benefit. Therefore, I decide to never do it again. That is logical. I did not prove anything. I could also decide to smash my hand again, for no apparent reason, and hope that it would turn my hand into gold. Which would be illogical. I did not disprove anything. The point was not to prove or disprove, the point is that I did something either sensible and rational, or something irrational.

I am not taking the belief that everything can be proven logically. I am taking the belief that everything can be subject to logic, that logic can apply towards anything.


[munches popcorn]

Did I win?

lol

Don't get your hopes up so soon...

[Dman]

I finished reading all the latest posts. Geoff & I are on the same wave here.

[FactsDontMatter]

If I may throw in a monkey wrench...

Has Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem been brought up in this thread? [Too lazy to look. http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/whistling.gif] It strikes me as the philosophical equivalent of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Here's a link [first one on Google] to a laundry list of different people's descriptions of it:

http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html

Here's one that seems appropriate to this discussion:

From Boyer, History of Mathematics, as quoted in the above link...

"Gödel showed that within a rigidly logical system such as Russell and Whitehead had developed for arithmetic, propositions can be formulated that are undecidable or undemonstrable within the axioms of the system. That is, within the system, there exist certain clear-cut statements that can neither be proved or disproved. Hence one cannot, using the usual methods, be certain that the axioms of arithmetic will not lead to contradictions ... It appears to foredoom hope of mathematical certitude through use of the obvious methods. Perhaps doomed also, as a result, is the ideal of science - to devise a set of axioms from which all phenomena of the external world can be deduced."

Included in that list is a quote by Douglas R. Hofstadter, author of Gödel, Escher, Bach, The Eternal Golden Braid: A metaphorical fugue on minds and machines, in the spirit of Lewis Carroll, which for me was a life-changing book. I don't recommend that book to normal people, but to this group I offer it up. From the Amazon.com review:

"Hofstadter's great achievement in Gödel, Escher, Bach was making abstruse mathematical topics (like undecidability, recursion, and 'strange loops') accessible and remarkably entertaining. Borrowing a page from Lewis Carroll (who might well have been a fan of this book), each chapter presents dialogue between the Tortoise and Achilles, as well as other characters who dramatize concepts discussed later in more detail. Allusions to Bach's music (centering on his Musical Offering (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000041A6/102-0419225-3728135)) and Escher's continually paradoxical artwork (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0810981130/102-0419225-3728135) are plentiful here. This more approachable material lets the author delve into serious number theory (concentrating on the ramifications of Gödel's Theorem of Incompleteness) while stopping along the way to ponder the work of a host of other mathematicians, artists, and thinkers."

This book messed my mind up in a wonderful way. And, it was incredibly fun...

[Geoff]

I think the argument has been portrayed although not in such a technically exacting way. As Lee pointed out "a logic system means it must be turtles all the way down" is what I read Godel as meaning. That a system is inherently incomplete because you can never use a system with that *particular* framework to solve a problem where the answer depends upon something outside of that set or framework.
It starts from a premise that a finite system can not describe an infinite universe. Or that any set of logical premises is limiting when one steps beyond to an infinitely large question.
It is a seductive form of reasoning, but ultimately one I see as just a rehash of the first cause argument (that no system can include something not described by the system).

Edit : The book looks an interesting read. Is it accessible?

-Geoff

[Lee]

If I may throw in a monkey wrench...

Has Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem been brought up in this thread? [Too lazy to look.


It was brung up on the first page of the thread and has been mentioned several times since.

[FactsDontMatter]

The book looks an interesting read. Is it accessible?
If by that you mean readable, yes. It is quite a lot of fun. Sometimes it gets into number theory where you won't want to follow, but that's OK. It comes back! If you've never read Hofstadter, then you've never seen a book structured this way.

I say it was life-changing for me. I may post on that sometime later. This is a book from the late 70s, and I read it in 83 or so. Now I realize that it underlies a lot of the things that fascinate me today, even though the path to the present was indirect.

[MacGuffin]

I disagree that “proving something is the point of logic”. If I take a hammer and smash it down on my hand, it injures me, and there is no benefit. Therefore, I decide to never do it again. That is logical. I did not prove anything. I could also decide to smash my hand again, for no apparent reason, and hope that it would turn my hand into gold. Which would be illogical. I did not disprove anything. The point was not to prove or disprove, the point is that I did something either sensible and rational, or something irrational.
It seems you proved there is no benefit to smashing your hand. It did not turn into gold.

I'd like to see someone logically prove or disprove the following statement:

Blue is the most beautiful color.

Now some will try to reformulate the statement and bring in a person's particular biases, brain functions, evolution, majority rule, etc. The statement has nothing to do with human beings. We are talking about a specific form of electromagnetic radiation and whether it inherently gives more pleasure to the senses than other forms of similar radiation.

[MacGuffin]

Have a little faith in the logic system to give a framework to reason any of the big questions...
So logic is a faith-based religion now?

Faith?

Logic?

Error, error, does not compute.

[Geoff]

So logic is a faith-based religion now?

Faith?

Logic?

Error, error, does not compute.

It was my sense of humour at play there, a gentle tweak at the noses of the believers out there. So don't take it at face value. And don't try any of those Force Mind tricks either.

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

-Geoff

[MacGuffin]

It was my sense of humour at play there, a gentle tweak at the noses of the believers out there. So don't take it at face value. And don't try any of those Force Mind tricks either.

I'm not the droid you are looking for.

-Geoff
You are not the droi.... wait a minute! I'm a Sith Lord!

[Crazy]

The force is strong with this one.


Every biological system is different, therefore, not all systems derive pleasure from the same frequency of light, which in turn would filter down to blue not always being the most beautiful color.

[Lee]

The force is strong with this one.


Every biological system is different, therefore, not all systems derive pleasure from the same frequency of light, which in turn would filter down to blue not always being the most beautiful color.

may I add,

Whether or not the organism percieves or derives pleasure from blue is a result of natural selection and specific nuerological activity in the brain, which comes about due to logical process.

[MacGuffin]

The force is strong with this one.


Every biological system is different, therefore, not all systems derive pleasure from the same frequency of light, which in turn would filter down to blue not always being the most beautiful color.
But are those systems in error to not receive the most pleasure from the color blue?

You are all describing "why" one color is preferred. I am looking for a natural law to dictate which color should be preferred.

[Crazy]

But are those systems in error to not receive the most pleasure from the color blue?

You are all describing "why" one color is preferred. I am looking for a natural law to dictate which color should be preferred.

This sounds like you are trying to introduce your own bias into the premise.

[MacGuffin]

This sounds like you are trying to introduce your own bias into the premise.
Which bias?

Cause I got a lot of them....

[MacGuffin]

You know what? Ditch the color argument. It is stooooooopid, a fact that I blame because of lack of caffeine this morning.

[Lee]

Everything has a logical process underpinning it, except that which started the logical process off in the first place.

[joft]

I think logic as we generally define it and all "rational" human thought in general is based on our very limited perceptions of "reality." True/false, here/there, cause/effect, who got to decide that any of these concepts are distinguishable from each other? Who gets to decide where one stops and the other begins? I think it results from observations about the universe based on Newtonian intuitions that are not entirely inclusive, but so ingrained in our thinking now that the discoveries of quantum physics seem so counter-intuitive and impossible.

[Dman]

It seems you proved there is no benefit to smashing your hand. It did not turn into gold.

True, but that was not the POINT. I was not seeking to prove or disprove anything. It was merely an observation, and a choice made based upon that observation. The choice was determined by way of logical conclusion.

Again, I * disagree * that the POINT of logic is to prove or disprove something.

[MacGuffin]

True, but that was not the POINT. I was not seeking to prove or disprove anything. It was merely an observation, and a choice made based upon that observation. The choice was determined by way of logical conclusion.

Again, I * disagree * that the POINT of logic is to prove or disprove something.
What is the point of logic then?

You can certainly apply logic ex post facto to a situation. As you did here.

[Dman]

What is the point of logic then?

You can certainly apply logic ex post facto to a situation. As you did here.

Point of logic – to understand; and make choices based upon that understanding. A seeking of truth, if you will. Not to PROVE truth, but to FIND truth.

[MacGuffin]

Point of logic – to understand; and make choices based upon that understanding. A seeking of truth, if you will. Not to PROVE truth, but to FIND truth.
I do not understand. How do you know if you have found truth if you do not test it? (prove or disprove)

[Dman]

I do not understand. How do you know if you have found truth if you do not test it? (prove or disprove)

You use logic. ;-)

[MacGuffin]

You use logic. ;-)
:huh:

Please give an example of where you "find" truth using logic, yet do not prove or disprove it.

It seems some view logic as some quasi-mystical process???

Far from the reasoned system philosophers and logicians have used for thousands of years.

[booyalab]

The aims of logic are epistemological. knowledge is not the same as truth .

[Dman]

Wow, what a fancy philosophical term!

I’m obviously not edumacated in the science of philosophy, so bear with me, but I think what Booyalab is saying is that we’re not trying to “prove” the truth, but rather to use the closest thing we know to be the truth in order to infer further truths. If the fundamental truth is wrong, then all else based upon it can be wrong as well – but once it is discovered it’s wrong, it can be logically re-worked again. Proof is not necessarily a condition – it’s desired, but not necessary.

Hmm…reading what I just wrote, I don’t think that helps.

How about this – I hit my hand with the hammer. Hurts, and no benefit. I don’t want my hand to hurt, and there doesn’t appear to be any beneficial reason to do so, so logically I don’t do it again. I did not prove that I don’t want my hand to hurt, but it is a condition believed to be truth due to the lack of any contrary evidence as well as what we know about how the brain functions.

I also did not prove that hitting my hand with a hammer hurts – it could be that my eyes watching the hammer contact my hand caused nerve cells in my brain to signify pain in my hand, and it is not the physical mass of the hammer that is truly hurting it. Perhaps if I closed my eyes and did it, it would not hurt. Of course that is silly, because using logic I can infer that due to what I accept as truth, my hand will hurt regardless of if my eyes are closed or not. I do not need to test it to prove it. Does that make sense? I “found” the truth that it will hurt, but I did not prove it.

Say I closed my eyes and did it again, and found that it did not hurt. Then, I can logically imply that if my eyes are closed, I will not feel pain. Again, I am not proving anything, but I’ve found that when I close my eyes and hit my hand with a hammer it does not hurt. It becomes an accepted truth with which I can logically infer other reasonings, such as if I hit my other hand with my eyes closed that it also will not hurt.

Cycling this back to “alogical”, it isn’t, ahem, logical to proclaim that something can exist “outside” the boundaries of logic. Logic can apply to anything, there are no proofs of anything necessary.

It is not the same as mysticism – there is no connection at all that I can see between logic and mysticism, other than that mysticism is a logical reaction for humans who choose to put more priority on feelings than facts.

If your implication to mysticism was meant to be more of a statement that logic is not a “hard” science with proofs, then yes, that’s correct. But it is still one grounded in perceived reality and factual evidence, since these things are firmly believed to be truths.

(steals a handful of MacGuffin’s popcorn)

How did I do?

[Dman]

Oh yeah, it’s not faith-based because faith is based independent of objectiveness and facts, and is grounded in subjective feelings – which are not reliable or credible sources of facts or truths and thus are not recognized as resembling truths.

[MacGuffin]

(steals a handful of MacGuffin’s popcorn)

How did I do?
Um, not well.


I’m obviously not edumacated in the science of philosophy, so bear with me, but I think what Booyalab is saying is that we’re not trying to “prove” the truth, but rather to use the closest thing we know to be the truth in order to infer further truths. If the fundamental truth is wrong, then all else based upon it can be wrong as well – but once it is discovered it’s wrong, it can be logically re-worked again. Proof is not necessarily a condition – it’s desired, but not necessary.
In logic, when you prove something you come to a conclusion based on the premises. "Proof" is not an absolute truth. In fact, you can prove a falsehood, if your premises are wrong.



How about this – I hit my hand with the hammer. Hurts, and no benefit. I don’t want my hand to hurt, and there doesn’t appear to be any beneficial reason to do so, so logically I don’t do it again. I did not prove that I don’t want my hand to hurt, but it is a condition believed to be truth due to the lack of any contrary evidence as well as what we know about how the brain functions.
Of course you didn't prove you don't want your hand to hurt. You already stated that - a premise.



I also did not prove that hitting my hand with a hammer hurts – it could be that my eyes watching the hammer contact my hand caused nerve cells in my brain to signify pain in my hand, and it is not the physical mass of the hammer that is truly hurting it. Perhaps if I closed my eyes and did it, it would not hurt. Of course that is silly, because using logic I can infer that due to what I accept as truth, my hand will hurt regardless of if my eyes are closed or not. I do not need to test it to prove it. Does that make sense? I “found” the truth that it will hurt, but I did not prove it.
Actually you did prove that hitting your hand with a hammer hurts. You hit it, it hurt. You decide that hitting it again will hurt. This is inductive reasoning. Now do you want to prove the actual reason why it hurts? That is another line of questioning.

You then wonder if closing your eyes will make a difference. You infer that it will not. You do not give your reasons, so I am assuming that you are basing it on common human experience: what you have read, seen in other people, etc. That propelling a mass into your hand causes pain, no matter if eyes are opened or closed. This is deductive reasoning.

In both cases you have proved that hitting your hand with a hammer hurts.


Say I closed my eyes and did it again, and found that it did not hurt. Then, I can logically imply that if my eyes are closed, I will not feel pain. Again, I am not proving anything, but I’ve found that when I close my eyes and hit my hand with a hammer it does not hurt. It becomes an accepted truth with which I can logically infer other reasonings, such as if I hit my other hand with my eyes closed that it also will not hurt.
You have now proved that it does not hurt when you close your eyes. Inductive reasoning again. Remember you can apply logic retroactively. It isn't the scientific method. You don't actually have to test anything.



Cycling this back to “alogical”, it isn’t, ahem, logical to proclaim that something can exist “outside” the boundaries of logic. Logic can apply to anything, there are no proofs of anything necessary.

It is not the same as mysticism – there is no connection at all that I can see between logic and mysticism, other than that mysticism is a logical reaction for humans who choose to put more priority on feelings than facts.
You say your viewpoint isn't mysticism. Yet you just flat out state logic applies to "everything", evidently even things that don't exist, without reason or proof. It sounds like some law handed down on Mount Sinai.

I just bought a five pound bag of popcorn!

[songbird36]

Wow, what a fancy philosophical term!

How about this – I hit my hand with the hammer. Hurts, and no benefit. I don’t want my hand to hurt, and there doesn’t appear to be any beneficial reason to do so, so logically I don’t do it again. I did not prove that I don’t want my hand to hurt, but it is a condition believed to be truth due to the lack of any contrary evidence as well as what we know about how the brain functions.

How did I do?

What you have given is actually an example of inductive (phenomenological) reasoning, not logical reasoning.

[Geoff]

I think you are right there Songbird. I think he got his logic confused...

I suspect he meant that he knows that hammers break bones, so he forms a premise that if he hits his hand it will break his bones. He hits his hand with the hammer to test his logical premise, breaks his hands and concludes that he wishes it was just a thought experiment ;)

Schrodingers cat anyone?

-Geoff

[MacGuffin]

Please, I beg you, not that damn cat!

[songbird36]

That premiss would be flawed in deductive logic terms though, because every time you hit your hand with a hammer it doesn't necessarily break a bone.

Inductive reasoning relies more on probability theory and therefore is more suitable for Dman's example.

[Geoff]

That premiss would be flawed in deductive logic terms though, because every time you hit your hand with a hammer it doesn't necessarily break a bone.

Inductive reasoning relies more on probability theory and therefore is more suitable for Dman's example.

I was just suggesting it was a logic based test. I was not talking about the reasoning used. It is a logical theory, tested by means of the scientific method.

Once you have hit your hands a lot of times and not broken every bone (assuming you arent a multi armed Kali) you are then in a position to modify your theory by way of appropriate reasoning.

-Geoff

[MacGuffin]

Now I place inductive reasoning under the umbrella of "logic".

[songbird36]

Now I place inductive reasoning under the umbrella of "logic".

I wouldn't do that - it would be a lexicographical error..

[MacGuffin]

I wouldn't do that - it would be a lexicographical error..I've seen it done, and it doesn't bother me that much.

Edit: what I mean is that it is not the classical definition of logic, but it is a general form of reasoning that can be classified as logical.

[Dman]

…and ol’ Dman takes a beating…

I said I was not schooled in philosophy (a pleasant way of saying I don’t know what I’m talking about).

But regardless of the terms and theories and deductiveness and inductiveness and epistemologicalness behind it, I stand by my original point that logic can be applied towards anything, therefore there is no such thing as “alogical”. In contrast, things exist that a sexual categorization does not apply to, such as a dandelion. A dandelion is asexual. But there is nothing that can be coined alogical. It can all be broken down into two categories – logical or illogical. I’m telling ya, it’s a false word based upon pretense. It has no place in our language.

As for mysticism – look up the meaning. Logic is a process that can be applied towards anything, although not always meaningfully. There is nothing mystical, i.e. spiritual, magical, about it. I think you know that. I think what you’re saying is that there must be “faith” in my words to be so bold as to state that logic can apply towards absolutely anything. Perhaps, but only in the sense that I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. We’re starting to argue semantics here. The only semantics are that alogical is not a word or a concept that has any validity.

(stands in corner waving hammer wildly at anything that moves)

[MacGuffin]

But regardless of the terms and theories and deductiveness and inductiveness and epistemologicalness behind it, I stand by my original point that logic can be applied towards anything, therefore there is no such thing as “alogical”. In contrast, things exist that a sexual categorization does not apply to, such as a dandelion. A dandelion is asexual. But there is nothing that can be coined alogical. It can all be broken down into two categories – logical or illogical. I’m telling ya, it’s a false word based upon pretense. It has no place in our language.
That is a nice worldview (universeview?) but no more valid than any Christian's.

Logic is a system. But to elevate it into something that explains all absolutely is to change it into some mystical viewpoint. To believe all is binary = mysticism. Vague, groundless speculation (dictionary definition).

Imagine an alternate universe. Or the time before the Big Bang. Where the laws of our universe break down and the causual relationships no longer apply. Logic becomes worthless.

[Dman]

That is a nice worldview (universeview?) but no more valid than any Christian's.

Logic is a system. But to elevate it into something that explains all absolutely is to change it into some mystical viewpoint. To believe all is binary = mysticism. Vague, groundless speculation (dictionary definition).

Imagine an alternate universe. Or the time before the Big Bang. Where the laws of our universe break down and the causual relationships no longer apply. Logic becomes worthless.

No. I did not state that logic explains everything. In fact I said it "can be APPLIED towards anything, although not always meaningful". If I’m hearing you correctly, you may as well say that science is also mysticism and just as valid a view as any christian’s.

I am also not one to judge that my views are more valid than someone else's (say a christian's), although I may believe that mine are backed up by more factual, observable, objective evidence. To me, that holds more credibility than what someone "feels" emotionally. But that's just me.

And yes, logic can be applied to your alternate universe. Using what we know about our universe, we can use logic to attempt to explain what is going on there, i.e. causal relationships do not apply, therefore... and laws that exist in our universe do not apply, therefore...
see that wasn't so hard

Lastly, I am not stating that everything “has to be” logical. I think this is where you may be misunderstanding my point. Many things are illogical. There are many reasons why something is illogical, including the simple fact that we just don’t know enough information to explain why it does not appear logical. However, let me say this again, with emphasis – there is no alogical! EVERYTHING can be termed logical or illogical. Do you see the point yet? There is no mysticism involved here just because I say everything. In a conceptual universe where everything is askew and nothing makes sense compared to our universe, we simply say it behaves illogically. We do not say it is alogical, we say it does not make sense…that means illogical. Nothing mystical about that statement.

[MacGuffin]

No. I did not state that logic explains everything. In fact I said it "can be APPLIED towards anything, although not always meaningful". If I’m hearing you correctly, you may as well say that science is also mysticism and just as valid a view as any christian’s.

I am also not one to judge that my views are more valid than someone else's (say a christian's), although I may believe that mine are backed up by more factual, observable, objective evidence. To me, that holds more credibility than what someone "feels" emotionally. But that's just me.
Okay, now I understand. We just call something that we apply logic towards and fail to reach a conclusion - alogical. It is just a term.


And yes, logic can be applied to your alternate universe. Using what we know about our universe, we can use logic to attempt to explain what is going on there, i.e. causal relationships do not apply, therefore... and laws that exist in our universe do not apply, therefore...
see that wasn't so hard
Well, no you didn't apply logic. I already stated causal relationships and the laws of the universed do not apply. Since logic depends on the causal relationships of our universe it becomes meaningless in that alternate universe. Which is why you put ... after your "therefore"s because no one knows how to analyze them.


Lastly, I am not stating that everything “has to be” logical. I think this is where you may be misunderstanding my point. Many things are illogical. There are many reasons why something is illogical, including the simple fact that we just don’t know enough information to explain why it does not appear logical. However, let me say this again, with emphasis – there is no alogical! EVERYTHING can be termed logical or illogical. Do you see the point yet? There is no mysticism involved here just because I say everything. In a conceptual universe where everything is askew and nothing makes sense compared to our universe, we simply say it behaves illogically. We do not say it is alogical, we say it does not make sense…that means illogical. Nothing mystical about that statement.
Many people just use illogical to define that which does not make sense. To label things that logic fails to explain. When debating logic, we use the term alogical in order to be more precise. We use logic and disprove something = illogical. We use logic and it fails to work = alogical.

It is just a term. One that has been used in logic for hundreds of years. I don't know why people are so vehement to deny it. The denials seem to be less of a reasoned conclusion and more dogmatic to me. That is why I keep saying mystical.

[Crazy]

Okay, now I understand. We just call something that we apply logic towards and fail to reach a conclusion - alogical. It is just a term.


Well, no you didn't apply logic. I already stated causal relationships and the laws of the universed do not apply. Since logic depends on the causal relationships of our universe it becomes meaningless in that alternate universe. Which is why you put ... after your "therefore"s because no one knows how to analyze them.


Many people just use illogical to define that which does not make sense. To label things that logic fails to explain. When debating logic, we use the term alogical in order to be more precise. We use logic and disprove something = illogical. We use logic and it fails to work = alogical.

It is just a term. One that has been used in logic for hundreds of years. I don't know why people are so vehement to deny it. The denials seem to be less of a reasoned conclusion and more dogmatic to me. That is why I keep saying mystical.

So, what you are saying is....

Logic (logical) = a method of explanation showing reasonable causal relationships

illogic (illogical) = flawed logic, using unreasonable causal relationships

alogic (alogical) = causal relationships unknown, insufficient data to either prove or disprove using logic.


I concur.

[MacGuffin]

So, what you are saying is....

Logic (logical) = a method of explanation showing reasonable causal relationships

illogic (illogical) = flawed logic, using unreasonable causal relationships

alogic (alogical) = causal relationships unknown, insufficient data to either prove or disprove using logic.


I concur.
At the risk of being called an "F": :thumbup:

[Dman]

Ok. I just don’t buy into the “alogical” thing, you do. To me it seems redundant at best; and at worst it’s nonsense.

I hate to say agree to disagree, because it sounds like such a cop-out, but I think we’re stuck, unless someone can come to the rescue – I’m assuming there’s plenty of popcorn left?

How’s about this, maybe this will keep it alive –

Logic = study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning; a system of reasoning.

Illogic = contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic; without logic; senseless.
Instances where causal relationships are not known or where there is insufficient data to “prove” or “disprove” using logic (which is not necessarily the point of logic) also fall under this category, in the sense that these instances are WITHOUT LOGIC or are SENSELESS (see definition above).

Alogic = Nonsensical term made up to describe something which is actually illogical. See also “Argument by Gibberish” under list of fallacious arguments. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

[Crazy]

Okay, lets make it real simple.

Is it logical?

Logic = Yes

Illogic = No

Alogic = Maybe

[MacGuffin]

Illogic = contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic; without logic; senseless.l (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html)
I just divide illogical into illogical (contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic) and alogical (without logic) in order to be more precise. So I know which definition of one is referring to.

In one, there is the violation of logic, in the other, there is a failure of logic.

[Dman]

I just divide illogical into illogical (contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic) and alogical (without logic) in order to be more precise. So I know which definition of one is referring to.

In one, there is the violation of logic, in the other, there is a failure of logic.

Whatever floats your boat, man. Still gibberish though, unless you can convince the rest of the world that it's a valid word/definition. I for one am not convinced (as you may have logically guessed).


Okay, lets make it real simple.

Is it logical?

Logic = Yes

Illogic = No

Alogic = Maybe

Is it logical?

Logic = Yes or appears to be (answering maybe)

Illogic = No or appears to be (answering maybe)

Alogic = Gibberish or appears to be

[MacGuffin]

Why do I need to convince the rest of the world about a word in the dictionary?

[Dman]

I did a brief search and found that very few dictionaries recognize it as a word. Regardless, I can find plenty of words in the dictionary that are nonsensical or redundant.

Using the logic (heh, me so clever) of your description, would you accept if I decided to call infinity “a-infinity” when referring to infinity used in mathematical formulas, and just use the term infinity when referring to it as a concept? It’s just to clarify whether I’m referring to a component of a formula vs. a concept.

Does that make the term “a-infinity” valid?

[songbird36]

"Illogical" is applying logic in a way that is incorrect or fallacious. Such as a logical fallacy.

"Alogical" is applying something in a way which does not use logic, or does not demand the use of logic.

[Lee]

I did a brief search and found that very few dictionaries recognize it as a word. Regardless, I can find plenty of words in the dictionary that are nonsensical or redundant.

Using the logic (heh, me so clever) of your description, would you accept if I decided to call infinity “a-infinity” when referring to infinity used in mathematical formulas, and just use the term infinity when referring to it as a concept? It’s just to clarify whether I’m referring to a component of a formula vs. a concept.

Does that make the term “a-infinity” valid?

It is quite irrelavent whether or not the word is in a dictionary, the idea behind the word is what is important, you could call alogic whatever you wanted to.

[MacGuffin]

I did a brief search and found that very few dictionaries recognize it as a word. Regardless, I can find plenty of words in the dictionary that are nonsensical or redundant.
American Heritage - check
Merriam-Webster's - check
Encarta - check
Dictionary.com - check

I also know I've looked it up at home in my Oxford's unabridged dictionary.


Using the logic (heh, me so clever) of your description, would you accept if I decided to call infinity “a-infinity” when referring to infinity used in mathematical formulas, and just use the term infinity when referring to it as a concept? It’s just to clarify whether I’m referring to a component of a formula vs. a concept.

Does that make the term “a-infinity” valid?
Sure. Anyone can invent a new word. That is how we got "quiz" after all.

[MacGuffin]

And never forget:


Ten Rules to Live By to Achieve INTP Success

Listen to Everything: Try not to dismiss anything immediately. Let it soak in, and then apply judgement. Try not to dismiss things that are alogical - they are not illogical.

http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP_per.html

[Dman]

American Heritage - check
Merriam-Webster's - check
Encarta - check
Dictionary.com - check

I also know I've looked it up at home in my Oxford's unabridged dictionary.


Sure. Anyone can invent a new word. That is how we got "quiz" after all.

Yes. I also found gobbledygook and supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in those dictionaries.

So in conclusion your position is that alogic and illogic generally mean the same thing; you've just decided that alogic is a more specific variation on illogic.

Is this correct?

[Dman]

And never forget:



http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP_per.html

The person who wrote that description certainly wasn't an INTP.

[songbird36]

Yes. I also found gobbledygook and supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in those dictionaries.

So in conclusion your position is that alogic and illogic generally mean the same thing; you've just decided that alogic is a more specific variation on illogic.

Is this correct?

Did you read my description of the distinction? Why do you still refuse to understand it?

[Geoff]

"Illogical" is applying logic in a way that is incorrect or fallacious. Such as a logical fallacy.

"Alogical" is applying something in a way which does not use logic, or does not demand the use of logic.

Actually, you can find as many definitions of both words as you want, I dont think it is a case of Dman "refusing to accept your definition". Not everything in life is black and white.

For example... what do you think this is a definition of?

illogical or allogical?

adj "a confused set of instructions"; "a confused dream about the end of the world"; "disconnected fragments of a story"; "scattered thoughts" [syn: confused, disconnected, disjointed, disordered, garbled, scattered, unconnected]

Yep... illogical. But I would say this much more closely matches your definition of alogical! So try not to be too definitive, you are dealing in definites where none exists.

-Geoff

[MacGuffin]

Yes. I also found gobbledygook and supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in those dictionaries.

So in conclusion your position is that alogic and illogic generally mean the same thing; you've just decided that alogic is a more specific variation on illogic.

Is this correct?
What is wrong with gobbledygook and supercalifragilisticexpialidocious?

For most people alogical and illogical are the same. When discussing logic, as a particular philosophical system, the distinction becomes important.

[MacGuffin]

Actually, you can find as many definitions of both words as you want, I dont think it is a case of Dman "refusing to accept your definition". Not
everything in life is black and white.
Yes there are many definitions for many things.

But we are being very specific here. I do not see why it confuses some.

It is like discussing colors and the color "orange" comes up. It does no good to interject how hard oranges are to peel and you hate the pulp in orange juice. It is irrelevant.

[Lee]

Why has this thread turned into a discussion on what specific words mean, they are just noises we make to attempt to express ideas, whether they have "officially" accepted definitions or not does not matter, the idea that underlies them is what is important.

So for the purpoeses of this thread regardless of what dictionarys might ot might not say -

Illogic = Applying logic incorrectly using faulty or incomplete premises, creating a fallacy.

Alogic = Unexplainable through the logical process, not the faulty application of logic but an instance or question to which logic cannot provide the answer... because of this any answer becomes unprovable.

I propose that the fundamental laws that underly the universe can only be considered alogical because no application of logic can explain why they are the way they are... any answer lies outside of logic as we know it, if such a thing existes it can probably only be considered alogical.

There may well be other valid examples of alogical, however other than "what things were like before the big bang" and the question of "God" I cannot see any other examples that make sense to me.

[Dman]

Ok, for sake of argument let's just say that the word alogical exists in every dictionary and is commonly used and understood throughout the whole world. Fine. Now let's look at the definition, which is almost exactly the same in the dictionaries I've found it in: Beyond or outside the bounds of logic.

This is what I have a problem with, more so than the word itself. It's the concept. I understand what the meaning of the word is trying to convey...the problem is that if you really apply yourself, you will find nothing outside the bounds of logic. It is only possible if you intentionally limit yourself or your thinking to do this. There still has not been an example of something that is deemed outside the boundaries of logic that cannot just as easily be deemed either logical or illogical.

Try it...

[Architectonic]

Why do I need to convince the rest of the world about a word in the dictionary?

Because they aren't very logical?

Alogical is certainly in the Macquarie dictionary (which is of course definitive :P )

adj - Outside the domain or operation of logic.

[MacGuffin]

Ok, for sake of argument let's just say that the word alogical exists in every dictionary and is commonly used and understood throughout the whole world. Fine. Now let's look at the definition, which is almost exactly the same in the dictionaries I've found it in: Beyond or outside the bounds of logic.

This is what I have a problem with, more so than the word itself. It's the concept. I understand what the meaning of the word is trying to convey...the problem is that if you really apply yourself, you will find nothing outside the bounds of logic. It is only possible if you intentionally limit yourself or your thinking to do this. There still has not been an example of something that is deemed outside the boundaries of logic that cannot just as easily be deemed either logical or illogical.

Try it...
See I think it is lack of imagination or vision to admit logic has limits.

Logic is a system. All systems have limits.

Take the concept of "God". People have tried applying logic to this concept for thousands of years.

And logic has failed us. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ............

[Lee]

See I think it is lack of imagination or vision to admit logic has limits.

Logic is a system. All systems have limits.

Take the concept of "God". People have tried applying logic to this concept for thousands of years.

And logic has failed us. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ............

hhmm, I don't understand... what are you trying to say?

;)

[MacGuffin]

hhmm, I don't understand... what are you trying to say?

;)and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ......

[Lee]

Why does 1+1 = 2?

Why are there positive, negative and neutral things in the universe?

Why does mass create gravity?

What came before the universe?

What created the logical process?

Why does light travel at the speed it does?

[MacGuffin]

Actually Einstein's theory is that mass warps space-time, creating gravity.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/gravity.html

[Lee]

Actually Einstein's theory is that mass warps space-time, creating gravity.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/gravity.html

I know that, maybe I should rephrase.

Why does mass warp space-time, thus creating gravity?

[MacGuffin]

I know that, maybe I should rephrase.

Why does mass warp space-time, thus creating gravity?
I do not know.

[Lee]

I do not know.

My point is that eventually these questions have not logical answer, we can use logic to assertain that they are true but cannot use logic to explain how they cam to be, they are the start of the logical process and so thier causes (if such existes) are alogical.

[Geoff]

My point is that eventually these questions have not logical answer, we can use logic to assertain that they are true but cannot use logic to explain how they cam to be, they are the start of the logical process and so thier causes (if such existes) are alogical.

I would say that it is merely that a logical approach *can* give us the answer but we just simply do not have the means and data to get there *now*. Just in the same way that 1000 years ago we could not apply logic to work out what the dark side of the moon looked like (or even if it had one).

So not alogical, merely logical without enough data to form a testable theorem.

Yet...

-Geoff

[Dman]

My point is that eventually these questions have not logical answer, we can use logic to assertain that they are true but cannot use logic to explain how they cam to be, they are the start of the logical process and so thier causes (if such existes) are alogical.

And again, to beat a dead horse, just because “we” don’t understand how something came to be, it cannot be explained logically? Revisit Geoff’s posts on page 11. At one time, why the sun rose in the west and set in the east had no “logical answer” as well. Does that mean it was alogical then, but not now?

Besides, it’s all due to a-infinity. I’m going to popularize that word and get it into the dictionary.

It’s irrelevant now (and quite frankly was irrelevant then) but just FYI - where I was coming from about the dictionary, I first tried Oxford, then Cambridge, then finally Webster’s, where I found the first recognition of the word ( I know, only three tries, that’s why I said “brief”. Cut me some slack, I’m trying to work here!). Subsequent searches have turned up a number of them that recognize the word; some “good” dictionaries, some questionable…

At any rate, the debate seems to have died (again). Let’s bring it up again in a couple weeks!

Now, about the notion that atheism is a less logical choice than agnosticism…

[Lee]

And again, to beat a dead horse, just because “we” don’t understand how something came to be, it cannot be explained logically? Revisit Geoff’s posts on page 11. At one time, why the sun rose in the west and set in the east had no “logical answer” as well. Does that mean it was alogical then, but not now?

But thats exactly the point! any logical answer discovered would simply create a new question.

e.g. hypothetically assume that matter warps space-time due to a as of now unkown process created by 'flobs'. Flobs are yet to be discovered but thier nature logically eplains why matter warps space-time.

Now I ask the question, how do you explain logically the existence of flobs? Now you could say there is something beyond flobs that explains them... this line of reasoning leads one down a never ending chain of reality, does everything just keep getting infinitely more complex?

[Geoff]

But thats exactly the point! any logical answer discovered would simply create a new question.

e.g. hypothetically assume that matter warps space-time due to a as of now unkown process created by 'flobs'. Flobs are yet to be discovered but thier nature logically eplains why matter warps space-time.

Now I ask the question, how do you explain logically the existence of flobs? Now you could say there is something beyond flobs that explains them... this line of reasoning leads one down a never ending chain of reality, does everything just keep getting infinitely more complex?

OK, well let's take an alternative.

1) God created the universe
2) God pops his head out from behind a cloud and says "Yep, I did this.. just because"
3) It's logical to believe in God now there is proof, cause and effect and accepted data.

So what ya gonna do?

[Lee]

OK, well let's take an alternative.

1) God created the universe
2) God pops his head out from behind a cloud and says "Yep, I did this.. just because"
3) It's logical to believe in God now there is proof, cause and effect and accepted data.

So what ya gonna do?

Maybe one of us is misunderstanding the other because I don't know what you are trying to say???

If God produced some irrefutible evidence that he exists, then it is logical to believe he existes. But a logical cause and effect process that explains why God existes would still be impossible without beggining an infinite chain of complexity that begins to contradict the very attributes acossiated with God (onipotent, omniscient, omnipresent).

[Geoff]

Maybe one of us is misunderstanding the other because I don't know what you are trying to say???

If God produced some irrefutible evidence that he exists, then it is logical to believe he existes. But a logical cause and effect process that explains why God existes would still be impossible without beggining an infinite chain of complexity that begins to contradict the very attributes acossiated with God (onipotent, omniscient, omnipresent).

But a God does not have to be all of those things. What people *choose* to believe or imagine does not have to be the logical best fit.

-Geoff

[Lee]

But a God does not have to be all of those things. What people *choose* to believe or imagine does not have to be the logical best fit.

-Geoff

Very true, some peoples definition of God can be logically disproven.

[MacGuffin]

I would say that it is merely that a logical approach *can* give us the answer but we just simply do not have the means and data to get there *now*. Just in the same way that 1000 years ago we could not apply logic to work out what the dark side of the moon looked like (or even if it had one).

So not alogical, merely logical without enough data to form a testable theorem.

Yet...

-Geoff
"Can give" does not mean "will give".

Often when discussing alogical things we are talking about things outside our universe. Outside our existence. There may not be any way to get data in order to apply logic.

[Geoff]

"Can give" does not mean "will give".

Often when discussing alogical things we are talking about things outside our universe. Outside our existence. There may not be any way to get data in order to apply logic.

You mean like my example of the dark side of the moon, 1000 years ago?

-Geoff

[songbird36]

Logic does not explain phenomena. It only explains necessary truths.

A phenomenon may *happen* to exist because it is logical for it to exist, but its inherent existence is not dependent on the existence of logic as a philosophical system.

[Geoff]

Logic does not explain phenomena. It only explains necessary truths.

A phenomenon may *happen* to exist because it is logical for it to exist, but its inherent existence is not dependent on the existence of logic as a philosophical system.

Logic is a thought process, not a reason for anything to exist - which should be self evident!

I quite like this quote on this point



Carnap used the phrase "rational reconstruction" to describe
the logical analysis of thought. Thus logic is less concerned
with how thought does proceed, which is considered the realm
of psychology, and more with how it should proceed to discover
truth. It is the touchstone of the results of thinking, but
neither its regulator nor a motive for its practice.

[songbird36]

Logic is a thought process, not a reason for anything to exist - which should be self evident!

I quite like this quote on this point

It's not self-evident to some people who have been posting on this thread.

[Geoff]

It's not self-evident to some people who have been posting on this thread.

Hmm. Anyway...

There is some interesting reading here on the logical thought process. For anyone that wants some Carnap background. I enjoyed it (didnt quite understand all of it!)

http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/carnap.htm

-Geoff

[Phenylethylene]

It's not self-evident to some people who have been posting on this thread.

Perhaps I missed it (I did wander away for a few pages), but I think the "some people" you refer to would not say logic is the reason for existence, but rather the modus operandi of existence.

[songbird36]

Then you are forced to say that without the invention of logic as a philosophical system nobody could explain the existence of anything.

That's nonsensical. Logic is a useful framework for reasoning, but that's all.

[booyalab]

Very true, some peoples definition of God can be logically disproven.

How the hell could an omni-everything God (which is what everyone is always talking about) be disproven?
Don't give the cliched "could an all-powerful God create a boulder so heavy he couldnt lift it" argument, because it's illogical. (logic and power are on different levels)

[songbird36]

Haven't you worked out Boo that this debate is an Oxymoron?

lol

[Lee]

How the hell could an omni-everything God (which is what everyone is always talking about) be disproven?
Don't give the cliched "could an all-powerful God create a boulder so heavy he couldnt lift it" argument, because it's illogical. (logic and power are on different levels)

Some people do not define God as omni-everything, most do but not all.

If God were omni-everything there is no way you could prove or disprove anything about God, which is the generally the case.

[songbird36]

I think the discussion of God is muddying the waters in the context of a debate which is about distinctions between logic, illogic and alogic. This is (and should remain) a largely semantic debate.

[MacGuffin]

Haven't you worked out Boo that this debate is an Oxymoron?

lol
WHO YOU CALLIN' A MORON?!?!? :thelook:

[booyalab]

Some people do not define God as omni-everything, most do but not all.

If God were omni-everything there is no way you could prove or disprove anything about God, which is the generally the case.

People who tend to argue about this tend to define him as omni-everything. I didnt think it was relevant to mention the possibility of engaging in a logical debate with a polythiest or ....well, I cant think of any other religions that would have an omni-some stuff or omni-most or omni-nothing god.

[booyalab]

I actually wasn't planning on flinging myself head first back into this debate, I was just waxin nostalgiac. (what am I saying? I never entered in the first place! everyone threw themselves at me!!! *curses the day she first spoke the word*)

[Geoff]

I actually wasn't planning on flinging myself head first back into this debate, I was just waxin nostalgiac. (what am I saying? I never entered in the first place! everyone threw themselves at me!!! *curses the day she first spoke the word*)

Although you are omni-present not every thread is omni-booyalab.

-Geoff

[booyalab]

haha, whatever you say.

I was the first one in the religious thread to use the word alogical and the first to receive flak for it, whether you remember it or not.

oh..and happy b-day :)

[Geoff]

haha, whatever you say.

I was the first one in the religious thread to use the word alogical and the first to receive flak for it, whether you remember it or not.

oh..and happy b-day :)

Ahh, I was in that discussion I remember it!

And thanks! I've drunk enough to be alogical to celebrate, but I think the b stands for birth.

-Geoff

[MacGuffin]

http://intpcentral.com/uploads/ali_liston.jpeg

[Dman]

"MIKE TYSON bites into the ear of Evander Holyfield in the third round of their WBA Heavyweight match Saturday, June 28, 1997, at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. "

[MacGuffin]

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/tys-holy2.gif

[Dman]

Ok, here’s my compromise, & I think you kind of brought this up before (something about a more specific definition of an argument). The term alogical is used for practical purposes. If something falls outside the scope of the logical argument, it can be said to be alogical. For example you are discussing why a man murdered another man, and if his actions were logical or not. He murdered the man based upon his irrational belief that God told him to do it. However the point of whether or not God actually exists is “alogical” in this argument, since it is not necessarily relevant to your argument. It is beyond the scope of the argument. On the other hand, outside the context of that specific argument, the point of whether or not God exists CAN be termed logical or illogical, as myself and others have demonstrated before.

I think of it similar to the legal system. For practical purposes, OJ Simpson was found innocent. It could not be proved without a reasonable doubt in a court of law that he was guilty. In reality, he was guilty. But in the courtroom, reality at the time of the murders was “alogical”, since it was not possible (practical) for the court to turn back time and witness in real time the actual events that led to the murder. This does not mean those real events themselves were alogical, but for practical purposes they were. The only thing that was relevant and practical in the courtroom was the circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.

So in those terms, you have convinced me of alogical’s right to exist. But I maintain that conceptually there is nothing that can fall outside the boundaries of logic. Only if you choose to believe so out of practicality for a specific argument.

[MacGuffin]

But I maintain that conceptually there is nothing that can fall outside the boundaries of logic. Only if you choose to believe so out of practicality for a specific argument.
Perhaps I am not clear about the "boundries of logic". I do believe you can try and apply logic to anything. When I say something is alogical, and outside the boundries of logic, I do not mean one cannot apply logic. Just that it fails repeatedly, or the conditions of the subject (by stating it exists outside our universe) make the application of logic futile.

I can say I believe in invisible magical pink unicorns. That idea is alogical. There is no evidence for or against them. Using logic is futile. One can label it irrational. But strictly speaking, my belief is not illogical.

Most alogical things are pretty worthless in what we call "reality". What happened before the Big Bang does not matter except philosophically.

[xenose]

Is this an example of a-logical (the fight)?

[Hexchild]

WOW, I should've been on this thread a few months ago.. :P

Anyhow, from one of the posts --


I got a lot of popcorn!

It just seems like you are missing the point. Proving something is the point of logic.

You are taking the belief that everything can be proven logically. That is a belief, not a reasoned law. No different than those that believe in God.


This hints at a potential spinoff discussion that apparently never got to develop. Since I find this particular property of logic interesting, here follows my take on it; a chain of logic reasoning I came up with a couple of years ago that pretty much proves that any trust in logic must be a matter of faith. Incidentally this is the same idea that I've tried to compress into a single statement in my current signature.


We start with a few definitions:

An "absolute truth" is an idea that can be described as a fact, and which is completely, utterly true, regardless of whether or not anyone knows it, believes it or can prove it. This also includes any base definitions on which some chain of logic relies (eg. I define 1+2 as being equal to 3, therefore it is an absolute truth that 1+2 is equal to 3).

An "absolute proof" is an undeniable reason to be completely, utterly certain of something, which thus must also be an absolute truth. Induced evidence does not qualify as absolute proof, because it leaves room for error. In theory, many instances of deduced evidence could qualify, but this is unlikely to happen very often in reality since input data tends to often be flawed.

"Pure logic" is a form of logic where nothing is left to uncertainty or coincidence, and which does not rely on any implicit axioms (explicit ones are fine), and which is logical (or more particularly, not illogical).


Let's then introduce an axiom which also relates these definitions:

The only way to produce absolute proof is by applying a set of pure logic to a set of absolute truths.


Now let's apply this on a chain of reasoning:

1. In order to completely trust in anything, you must first have either absolute faith or absolute proof.

2. Absolute faith can be obtained through a simple (or sometimes not so simple) choice to believe. This may or may not be a conscious decision. Often it is something you grow up with.

3. Absolute proof can only be obtained by applying one or other chain of pure logic to facts that are already known to be true.

4. The already known facts on which a chain of logic is based must be absolute truths, or the derived result might not be true, thus the proof would not be absolute.

5. A chain of logic applied must be applied correctly, that is, it must be pure logic, or the derived result might not be true, thus the proof would not be absolute.

(points 3, 4 and 5 combine into the axiom above)

6. Even if you do have the facts straight and apply your logic correctly, that is, even if you use absolute truths as input and your logic is pure, and even if you somehow *know* this to be absolutely true, you still have to completely trust in the applied logic, and more generally in logic as a valid method of providing proof for that matter, before you can completely trust the results to be true.

7. In order to completely trust in the validity of any chain of logic, or in the validity of logic in general, you must have either absolute faith in or absolute proof of said validity. (see point 1)

8. Absolute faith in the validity of logic can be obtained by choosing, whether conscious or not, to believe in the validity of logic. (see point 2)

9. Absolute proof of the validity of logic can only be obtained by applying one or other chain of pure logic to facts that are already known to be absolute truths, in other words to absolutely prove the validity of logic as a general concept you need to use pure logic. (see point 3)

10. Here, we might as well jump recursively straight back to point 4. We have to do this somewhere, or the list would have to become infinitely long.


It is impossible to get out of this recursive loop of logic reasoning until you either "drop out" of it by acknowledging that correctly using logic based on accurate facts does not guarantee that the results are true, or choose to have absolute faith in its validity... :D

You can of course choose to stay in the loop and continue forever, but then you will never arrive at any conclusion, which means that, based on my axiom and definitions, and assuming my logic isn't flawed, there is at least one thing that is impossible to prove, and that is the validity of logic as a trustworthy reasoning tool. Which was my point anyway. So if you do this I'd simply classify you as a stubborn believer. In short, trust in logic can only stem from faith (even if the believer doesn't realize that).


There could of course be some flaw in the above logic. Actually I know of one already, but I won't tell ;P

If you find it, let me know... same goes of course for any flaws that I don't know about; those I really want to know about it.


Personally, I do tend to trust in logic, because empirically it has proven to be a trustworthy companion, but since I reached this conclusion I don't have absolute faith in it anymore, because faith is simply not my cup of tea. Consequentially, I must acknowledge that there may be cases where some chain of pure logic that is correctly applied on absolute truths does not necessarily yield anything that is true. This is not the same as assuming that there *are* such cases, mind you. ;)

---
Illogical, Nonsensical Thought Process?

[Dman]

Oh boy, here we go again…

MacGuffin, where are you, and bring the popcorn, wouldya please?


a chain of logic reasoning I came up with a couple of years ago that pretty much proves that any trust in logic must be a matter of faith.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. “proves” any trust in logic must be faith? I disagree. First off, logic does not have to be 100% correct. It is a system, a method. Furthermore there is no need for “trust” in logic. Your contention falls apart right there.

Of course your statement concludes with “faith” when you use the word “trust”, trust itself is a form of faith!


acknowledging that correctly using logic based on accurate facts does not guarantee that the results are true

Bingo. I thought we already covered this many pages ago, perhaps you haven’t had time to go through them all yet.

BTW - Your claim that you trust logic, but have no faith in it, is illogical. :)

[Apostasius]

"Logic is invincible, because in order to combat logic it is necessary to use logic."
— Pierre Boutroux

Discuss.

[Hexchild]

Bingo. I thought we already covered this many pages ago, perhaps you haven’t had time to go through them all yet.

I read them all and never found any real discussion on this.



BTW - Your claim that you trust logic, but have no faith in it, is illogical. :)

I never claimed to have no faith in logic.

[Dman]

I read them all and never found any real discussion on this.

You’re right – it was another thread – sorry about that… here, enjoy (this was a great thread, btw) -

http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=881&page=1&pp=10




I never claimed to have no faith in logic.

I must have misunderstood this:


I don't have absolute faith in it anymore, because faith is simply not my cup of tea.

Must be the “absolute” part that I missed?

[Hexchild]

Must be the “absolute” part that I missed?

Precisely.

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS

[booyalab]

ugh.....i'm embarrassed just by the idea of it being here.

I realized something at a later date with this argument. I think NTs who understand what 'alogic' is are more likely to have developed Ni.

[Claverhouse]

It was done, after much discussion, solely to annoy you.

The forum only exists to annoy you; but you probably realised that...



Claverhouse :ph34r:



:peep:

[booyalab]

someone needs another hugging emoticon

:hug:

[guerranet]

I'm myself a math student (God knows what I will be next year) and I always considered that though mathematics and physics explain a lot, they always halted at some point. I believe that this point will move indefinitely, thus, universe is infinitely complex.
Anyway, back to the topic. Yes, every scientifical study must lie on top of some axioms that are intuitively comprehended and cannot be defined. How one defines definition?
I tried to start this discussion earlier in some other threads, but I was left ignored.

Trivia: Set Of All Sets does not exist because thereis another set that contains all sets AND Set Of All Sets.

Edit:
Just wanted to add this:
- logic exists
- illogic does not exist
- alogic - don't know, CAN'T know, and don't care

Definition = Limitation
When we define, we limit. In some things there are degrees of membership and in order to make sense of things, and therefore to limit scope, we define. Depends also on the level of abstraction, then it is more difficult to limit. But then, that's why we're INTPs, right?

[Deckard]

4 year old thread but...why not.

Definition = Limitation
When we define, we limit. In some things there are degrees of membership and in order to make sense of things, and therefore to limit scope, we define. Depends also on the level of abstraction, then it is more difficult to limit. But then, that's why we're INTPs, right?
I don't think this is necessarily true. If we manage to discover the basic atomic thing that the universe is made of, and define its properties completely, then there is no abstraction. It would be the god particle, and our definition of it would be true. It could be that this particle effects its own existence, which would mean that we don't need any "alogical" axioms - the universe would completely define itself with a finite set of rules (let's call them "logic"). Alternatively, the particle just is, and that would be the fundamental (true) axiom.

The catch, though, is that we can never know if/when we reach that point.

[guerranet]

Very well put, but I do not speak in absolutes. Only the Sith speaks in absolutes. I'm just a Jedi apprentice.

[Ferrus]

The catch, though, is that we can never know if/when we reach that point.
I serverely doubt the capacity of humans reaching such a level of understanding. This is not a theistic apologia, just to clarify, but an expression of fundamental skepticism. Human brains are finitely limited within a universe, and have a partial understanding of it, as our brains just give us blurred facsimilies of the gross structures of the universe. From this we can deduce very advanced mathematical models, but understanding that transends the universe, even within a self-referential model such as you described, seems unlikely.

[Technical]

I don't think anything should be defined, ever. We only live once, I mean why is everyone wasting all this time defining things.

[Deckard]

I serverely doubt the capacity of humans reaching such a level of understanding. This is not a theistic apologia, just to clarify, but an expression of fundamental skepticism. Human brains are finitely limited within a universe, and have a partial understanding of it, as our brains just give us blurred facsimilies of the gross structures of the universe. From this we can deduce very advanced mathematical models, but understanding that transends the universe, even within a self-referential model such as you described, seems unlikely.
I don't think I agree. We observe that complex behaviour can arise from the behaviour of groups of relatively simple entities. This principle seems to be repeated in the world as we drill down in scale from macro to micro. If a fundamental particle exists, it seems intuitively likely that it would have simple properties, and that all the complexity of the universe emerges from simple interactions. What I'm saying is, should we discover the fundamental particle, I don't see a specific reason to think that we couldn't fully comprehend its properties.

[Ferrus]

We observe that complex behaviour can arise from the behaviour of groups of relatively simple entities.
Yes - but can we model that complexity in such a way as to produce entire pictures of the universe? The sheer complexity of the resulting calculations of the entire universe results in a screen against which the exact manifestations are observed, else, all of human knowledge would reduce to particle physics. Laplace's daemon and all of that.

More than that - is it still questionable whether as humans with the empirical equipment we have on board us, that we will ever find certainty on an empirical level for string theory. Mathematics is extremely powerful, but in the final analysis it is only a tool for modelling reality, not a substitute for reality itself - although naturally it can point in the right direction, as it did in physics in the early 20th century.

[Deckard]

Yes - but can we model that complexity in such a way as to produce entire pictures of the universe? The sheer complexity of the resulting calculations of the entire universe results in a screen against which the exact manifestations are observed, else, all of human knowledge would reduce to particle physics. Laplace's daemon and all of that.
Ok - I see this as a separate point to the question of whether we can determine the fundamental rules/logic of the universe. We don't need to model the entire universe to be able to obtain useful predictions about the subset of it that we are interested in.

To the question of whether we can model the entire universe - on the face of it there seems to be the obvious problem of fitting a box inside another equally sized box. But I suppose it may be possible with some advanced data compression. I don't really know why we would want to, though, if we can use simpler models to achieve our goals.


More than that - is it still questionable whether as humans with the empirical equipment we have on board us, that we will ever find certainty on an empirical level for string theory. Mathematics is extremely powerful, but in the final analysis it is only a tool for modelling reality, not a substitute for reality itself - although naturally it can point in the right direction, as it did in physics in the early 20th century.
On the one hand I don't think it's even possible for us to achieve certainty with string theory, or any other theory of reality, due to our limited perspective. On the other hand, I think mathematics can be a substitute for [some subset of] reality, if it happens to completely and accurately describe it.

[Ferrus]

Ok - I see this as a separate point to the question of whether we can determine the fundamental rules/logic of the universe. We don't need to model the entire universe to be able to obtain useful predictions about the subset of it that we are interested in.
Indeed, I have never for a moment doubted the pragmatic value of science, what I question is whether this forms a closure of knowledge within the universe as a whole. But yes you are right they are seperate questions - knowledge of the fundamental interactions of the universe can indeed be given by some degree of approximation, after all we ourselves are the products thereof. But I don't see how we can ever have fundamental empistemological certainty, when after all the scientific method itself seems to explicitly forbid this. And more than that - we can only say we have knowledge of the fundamental laws of the universe insofar as we as humans can understand them (and after all quantum mechanics is only understood really as set of mathematical rules), it is impossible for us to make greater claims to truth because we are fundamentally in a position of being unable to know if we do in fact have the capacity to understand everything. To talk about such matters is, obviously, irrelevant and pointless, which is why they should not detain us from the pragmatic goal of science. But a recognition of the partial capacity for humans to recognise their surroundings is beneficial to us all.

A part of me believes, that from the very beginning really, the human species has been deluding itself about how much it can understand, because one's life is in a self-closed bubble where it is all understood, and evolutionarily, any doubt thereof serves not purpose. Thus we constantly wish to find justification that despite being a finite collection of cells we are capable of understanding the foundations of existence.

To the question of whether we can model the entire universe - on the face of it there seems to be the obvious problem of fitting a box inside another equally sized box. But I suppose it may be possible with some advanced data compression. I don't really know why we would want to, though, if we can use simpler models to achieve our goals.
More important however is that any device, be it our brains or a computer is itself a subset of the universe and therefore naturally has less capacity to 'compute' the outcome of the universe than the universe itself. Data compression is not going to cut ice on a set of extremely complex coupled differential equations, is it?

On the one hand I don't think it's even possible for us to achieve certainty with string theory, or any other theory of reality, due to our limited perspective. On the other hand, I think mathematics can be a substitute for [some subset of] reality, if it happens to completely and accurately describe it.
But does it? Mathematics as far as I can see only models specific circumstances with highly contrived boundry conditions and follows on from logical consequences. Its applications to the world are often fragmented and based on its intuitive link to casuality. It forms a clear sighted method of understanding but without empirical evidence is just that, a logical model that can nevertheless highlight interesting phenomenon.

[Deckard]

But does it? Mathematics as far as I can see only models specific circumstances with highly contrived boundry conditions and follows on from logical consequences.
I don't think a mathematical model being contrived (as they all are) says anything about whether or not it represents reality. I think your position arises from the intuitive idea that mathematics is not empirically derived from [our observations of] reality, and therefore cannot represent it. But I am arguing that mathematics may be used to represent reality, and indeed is indistinguishable from it, if our mathematical model happens to be correct. The trouble being that we can't be certain of its correctness (though we might guess, based on the model's ability to accurately predict observable phenomena).

It may be that mathematics cannot describe reality, but in the context of this discussion I would use the term as a placeholder for the framework by which we are attempting to model reality.

[Ferrus]

I don't think a mathematical model being contrived (as they all are) says anything about whether or not it represents reality. I think your position arises from the intuitive idea that mathematics is not empirically derived from [our observations of] reality, and therefore cannot represent it. But I am arguing that mathematics may be used to represent reality, and indeed is indistinguishable from it, if our mathematical model happens to be correct. The trouble being that we can't be certain of its correctness (though we might guess, based on the model's ability to accurately predict observable phenomena).

It may be that mathematics cannot describe reality, but in the context of this discussion I would use the term as a placeholder for the framework by which we are attempting to model reality.
The issue of mathematics is not really at question here - the issue is, as I have stated, whether as biological entities with finite mental capacities and limited sensory capacities we can derive a fundamental understanding of our enviroments, and more importantly, be absolutely sure we have a fundamental model. I would argue, the human condition is such that there is always an irreducible scope for skepticism, which has no practical purpose* but towards which I stick as a matter of epistemological purity.

*Mainly, although, of course, it can do.

[Deckard]

The issue of mathematics is not really at question here - the issue is, as I have stated, whether as biological entities with finite mental capacities and limited sensory capacities we can derive a fundamental understanding of our enviroments, and more importantly, be absolutely sure we have a fundamental model. I would argue, the human condition is such that there is always an irreducible scope for skepticism, which has no practical purpose* but towards which I stick as a matter of epistemological purity.

*Mainly, although, of course, it can do.
I agree with you on this. The gist of what I am saying is that I don't see a particular reason to be skeptical that we can comprehend the (correct) fundamental model. This is what I was responding to in your initial post. I see it as separate to the question of whether or not we can be certain that model is correct.

[Ferrus]

see a particular reason to be skeptical that we can comprehend the (correct) fundamental model.
Well, what I just said suggests that even if theoretically we could comprehend the fundamental model, we would never fully know that it was the fundamental model, and therefore we would not have understood the universe in a fundamental way. A tautology of sorts I admit.

[Deckard]

Well, what I just said suggests that even if theoretically we could comprehend the fundamental model, we would never fully know that it was the fundamental model, and therefore we would not have understood the universe in a fundamental way. A tautology of sorts I admit.
Would we understand the model, though? I am suggesting that the model is indistinguishable from what is being modelled, if the model is complete & correct.

[Ferrus]

Would we understand the model, though? I am suggesting that the model is indistinguishable from what is being modelled, if the model is complete & correct.
Ah well, we run against the wall of semantics which has perhaps been the underlying problem. I suppose it is close related to qestions of whether we 'understand' quantum mechanics is debatable - we can perform mathematical modelling of it, but do we know of the processes that give rise to the axioms thereof? I generally tend to find understand as being 'grasping the nature of' - and to my mind pure modelling from axioms is not understanding. Understanding means comprehending the full casual chain of events. So yes, it is possible we might be able to compute the universe, but not understand it. Much as a computer can computer weather patterns without having the slightest understanding of hydrodynamics.

I have been thinking more, the real benchmark of understanding is - can we give a description that is meaningful for the human brain as a biological organ? I would say we passed that mark with the violation of Bell's inequality. Thereupon we have in a sense merely been probing the universe for probabilistic axioms.

[UniversalMagnetism]

anyone could respond if they want, since I suppose Lee will not see this:


Did logic create the universe? or did the universe create logic?

I say that the universe created logic.

Sometimes I wonder if the only way to be omnipotent is to be both logical and illogical at the same time. How would one do that? I have an idea...but I'd rather see if other people can reach the same conclusion as me without biasing them first.


Why does 1+1 = 2?


Perhaps we saw inherent meaning in it; meaning that relates to archetypal human intelligence. We know that 1 = 1 is distinct from all other things, and that if we put them together we get another distinction of 2, done in order we can then count and distinguish between orderings of same things. The problem is when we try to say that an apple+orange = 2. Both the apple and orange can't be both one because they are not distinctly similar.



Why are there positive, negative and neutral things in the universe?


Each one can't exist without the others as well. It is said in philosophy that what we know includes what we don't know; although what is unknown to us isn't something we can know anything about.
To know positive things is to distinguish it between the known negative and neutral to do so. Neutral is interesting though because it implies that by knowing something, positive and negative, we can also know what it is not, neutral.



Why does mass create gravity?

Does it? Or is that the meaning we ended up creating? What is F=MA, but a relationship between an abstract notion of mass (one that our eyes deceive us with, similar to spatial notions of 'empty space') and interpretive movement of acceleration through causality?



What came before the universe?

Was there ever an after for there to be a before? I'm not sure I can even distinguish between before and after; it is paradoxical for me to even try.



What created the logical process?

Is philosophy, which teaches us paradoxes in the binary logical deductions of the process of the world, something we could say is logical? Are paradoxes by definition representative of logic or an affront against logic?



Why does light travel at the speed it does?
I'd say we made it so in the same way that it was made to be that your name would be Lee; it supplies us with enough meaning to gauge and distinguish it with or from other things, while carrying little apparent doubt to its distinguishable relevance.

[Utisz]

So yes, it is possible we might be able to compute the universe, but not understand it...

You couldn't compute the universe if the computation was part of the universe . . .

feedback loop . . .

unless maybe the computation itself was mindful of finding a stable equilibrium . . .

it would need to compute a version of the universe it could compute with itself in it, so to speak . . .

maybe compute itself as being undecidable, reaching a paradox . . .

or, in other words, blah blah blah blah blah ellipses newline newline times six . . .

[Lee]

Ha! I forgot about this thread. I'm still an idiot.