Does "illogical" exist?

[BadgerJelly]

zoot-

Dialetheism is not the view that "there is no distinction between "right" and "wrong"". Dialetheism is the view that there is at least one true contradiction. That's all. Most dialetheists believe that contradictions are very rare, that they only emerge in very special kinds of circumstances. And note that even in those circumstances in which contradictions do arise, it's not that there's no distinction between right and wrong. Suppose we accept that the Liar paradox ("this sentence is false") is both true and false, a contradiction. In that case: it's wrong, simply incorrect, to assert that it's not a contradiction.

You might be thinking of trivialism, which is the view that everything is true (and conversely, obviously, everything is false). All trivialists are dialetheists, but not all dialetheists are trivialists. Trivialism would destroy any distinction between right and wrong. But is there anybody who seriously claims to accept trivialism? (I know of at least one author who has explicitly defended it. I'm apt to consider his work, and any work like it, a purely technical exercise.)

What is is like it o lump it.

When it comes to "true" or "false" the word concept has to be defined in an isolated manner. False means false not bad, wrong or incorrect. What is hidden beneath this concept of communication is the emotional content due to the responses each persons individual belief system allows.

When it comes to belief you cannot believe what you do not believe ... or can you? Is it not the language that creates our conceptual boundaries (as well as other things)?

[Obvious Leo]

I reckon you make a very important point there Badger. Language does indeed define our conceptual boundaries.

I read an article somewhere ages ago about the language shortcomings of a particularly disadvantaged and poorly educated socio-economic group in one of the major U.S cities, I forget which. The average vocabulary in regular usage of the individuals in this group was as little as 300 words. Assuming that the language we think in is substantially the same as the language we communicate in this would seem to suggest that these people would only have been capable of engaging in a very narrow sphere of conceptualised thinking. They simply wouldn't have had the words to think complex thoughts. This would be regardless of their intelligence, which we could safely assume was no different from the general population.

Also relevant to this notion is the fact that all the major works of world literature have been written in only the handful of languages which have the largest vocabularies. The greater the variety and nuance in the language we use the more sophisticated and broader the concepts we are capable of expressing. I have even heard it said that humans are getting smarter because many modern languages are growing steadily bigger in size.

Alas I see precious little evidence of this when you consider all the crap on the telly.

Regards Leo

[JohnD]

Logic is a tool to express meaning from apparent chaos because we are pattern searchers. Logic is not absolute and many things that seem logical can quite easily be illusions of the senses.

To me Logic is the bringing together of collected facts in order to attain an opinion. The more facts that are present the more accurate the opinion.
I agree there is nothing absolute in this universe though there are those who would swear they know exactly what is. But logic does have a foundation and that is gathered facts, the more we have the more we know and the better our prediction. It isn't that logic is illogical rather that we have a tendency to assume we have enough information and reference it by saying "logic dictates" however logic doesn't dictate, facts dictate. Nothing is illogical just more facts are required.
It is more a matter that people have a tendency to confuse truths with facts.
Edit
To take a look at language. Yes as Leo says language is fluid and growing all the time. Also what is happening as Badger Jelly says the interpretation of words is changing and has been changing ever since language was conceived. So depending upon the personal views of the reader everything that is said is subject to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. I believe this is the problem that archaeologists had when trying to interpret hieroglyphics.
That is why I stress facts as against truths, facts are less likely to be distorted by interpretation.

[zoot]

Zoot. A thoughtful and well-crafted post. Would I be describing your position correctly if I said that different forms of logic must be applied in different conceptual frameworks in much the same way as different mathematical tools must be applied to different problems in physics?

Regards Leo

Hi Leo. Sure, I'd accept something like that. In fact, thinking about the relationship between mathematics and physics would probably help clarify the distinctions I drew in my post. As far as I'm aware, the consensus in physics is that the structure of our universe is described by a non-Euclidean geometry. In this sense, Euclidean geometry is objectively false. However, it provides a good enough approximation in most circumstances that are relevant to humans, it's more intuitive, and it's interesting in itself for historical (and other) reasons.

Consider again the distinctions I drew, with respect to Euclidean geometry. (1) - "pursuit of logic in a purely 'formal' or 'abstract' manner" - is analogous to exploring Euclidean geometry, just for its own sake. We're not thinking about how we might use it in our scientific theories, or how might apply it to particular problems. We just enjoy geometry and want to explore the properties of the Euclidean system.

(2b) - "logics applied as part of an explanation of/account of particular phenomena" - is analogous to developing a physical theory that aims to be a correct account of the world, and that uses Euclidean geometry. We're proposing that the structure of the world, is, fundamentally, Euclidean. (Such a proposal would surely be rejected by the vast majority of modern scientists.)

Then (2a) - "logics applied as a purely 'practical' tool" - is analogous to using Euclidean geometry to solve any other problem. As I mentioned, we know that the structure of the world is not, in fact, Euclidean. However, Euclidean geometry is simple and provides a close enough approximation in most circumstances that are relevant to humans. Strictly speaking, it's false, but practically speaking, we don't always need to worry about that (for many practical problems, classical mechanics is good enough: we don't need to consider relativity, quantum phenomena, etc, until we move away from normal human scales).


A dialetheist will want a paraconsistent logic; an intuitionist will want an intuitionistic logic; a Meinongian will want free logic; etc etc. Of course, one can be a pluralist and say that there is no "One True Logic" (there are many versions of such pluralism, some of which I accept). However, if one is, e.g. a dialetheist, non-paraconsistent logics must be wrong in certain situations - namely, inconsistent situations. Otherwise, we could simply take the true contradiction, apply ex false quodlibet, and bam! - we can derive anything. Dialetheism demands paraconsistency (at least occasionally). So yes, different conceptual frameworks definitely require different logics.

[zoot]

zoot-

Dialetheism is not the view that "there is no distinction between "right" and "wrong"". Dialetheism is the view that there is at least one true contradiction. That's all. Most dialetheists believe that contradictions are very rare, that they only emerge in very special kinds of circumstances. And note that even in those circumstances in which contradictions do arise, it's not that there's no distinction between right and wrong. Suppose we accept that the Liar paradox ("this sentence is false") is both true and false, a contradiction. In that case: it's wrong, simply incorrect, to assert that it's not a contradiction.

You might be thinking of trivialism, which is the view that everything is true (and conversely, obviously, everything is false). All trivialists are dialetheists, but not all dialetheists are trivialists. Trivialism would destroy any distinction between right and wrong. But is there anybody who seriously claims to accept trivialism? (I know of at least one author who has explicitly defended it. I'm apt to consider his work, and any work like it, a purely technical exercise.)

What is is like it o lump it.

When it comes to "true" or "false" the word concept has to be defined in an isolated manner. False means false not bad, wrong or incorrect. What is hidden beneath this concept of communication is the emotional content due to the responses each persons individual belief system allows.

When it comes to belief you cannot believe what you do not believe ... or can you? Is it not the language that creates our conceptual boundaries (as well as other things)?

I'm sorry, but I don't know what your point is here... I don't much understand your post at all, to be honest. A number of questions arise: what is a "word concept"? (vs just a "word"?) What does it mean for a word (word concept) to be "defined in an isolated manner"? What are you referring to what "concept of communication"? How is "emotional content" relevant? (what is "emotional content", in this context?) And what does all this have to do with my post?

I apologise if all of that seems rather obtuse.

Re "believe what you do not believe": all that's required for somebody to be a dialetheist is that there is at least one statement (which is unambiguous and so on) for which they would assert both it and its negation, or to which they would assign both truth and falsity (or both truth and non-truth), or whatever. Does this involve both believing and not believing the statement? I suppose it depends on how you're defining "belief" (especially in relation to negation, denial, acceptance, and so on). Note, though, that not all dialetheists accept that people can have contradictory mental states. That is, they don't all accept that a person could both have and not have (at the same time) a particular mental state. Let's say Frank believes that x is true and also believes that x is not true. Does this mean that Frank both has, and does not have, the belief that x is true? That's very questionable. These kinds of distinctions are subtle but important.

(There was a problem with the part you quoted: for technical reasons, "it's wrong, simply incorrect, to assert that it's not a contradiction" should have been "it's wrong, simply incorrect, to reject that it's a contradiction". I don't think this has anything to do with what you said in your post, though.)

[Obvious Leo]

Zoot. Thank you for your response. It was precisely this difference between Euclidean and Einsteinian geometries that I was alluding to in my question. These geometries actually describe something far deeper than the simple mathematical relationship between objects and events as they are located in space and time. They also describe the conceptual framework in which such relationships should be considered. As such a false interpretation of these geometrical relationships will lead to a false conceptual model of the system they describe, in this case the universe.

Regards Leo

[skakos]

Zoot. Thank you for your response. It was precisely this difference between Euclidean and Einsteinian geometries that I was alluding to in my question. These geometries actually describe something far deeper than the simple mathematical relationship between objects and events as they are located in space and time. They also describe the conceptual framework in which such relationships should be considered. As such a false interpretation of these geometrical relationships will lead to a false conceptual model of the system they describe, in this case the universe.

Regards Leo

But the same “cosmos” can be described with both Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometries. What does that even mean? The easiness with which you can change your reference system denotes its unimportance…

[Obvious Leo]

Zoot. Thank you for your response. It was precisely this difference between Euclidean and Einsteinian geometries that I was alluding to in my question. These geometries actually describe something far deeper than the simple mathematical relationship between objects and events as they are located in space and time. They also describe the conceptual framework in which such relationships should be considered. As such a false interpretation of these geometrical relationships will lead to a false conceptual model of the system they describe, in this case the universe.

Regards Leo

But the same “cosmos” can be described with both Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometries. What does that even mean? The easiness with which you can change your reference system denotes its unimportance…

Utter nonsense. It denotes the exact opposite. The cosmos cannot be described at all using Euclidean geometry because this mathematical system applies to 2 dimensional surfaces only. Neither can it be described using Newtonian geometry because this can only be applied to a 3-dimensional space. Hence we have unexplained physical constants to fill in the gaps. This creative little piece of sleight of hand can make the sums work out but cannot describe the cosmos. Our 4-dimensional continuum has no mathematical system to describe it and therefore the cosmos has not been described. This is what I have repeatedly described as the fundamental conceptual stumbling block in physics which has stalled its progress for a century. Instead physics keeps digging itself ever deeper into confusion because it is using the wrong tools.

This is like building a chimney by flinging the bricks up from the ground instead of fetching a ladder. You finish up with bricks all over the place and a chimney that doesn't work.

Regards Leo

[zoot]

But the same “cosmos” can be described with both Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometries. What does that even mean? The easiness with which you can change your reference system denotes its unimportance…

If you accept current physical theory, then Euclidean geometry is false as a description of the cosmos. It provides a convenient approximation at normal human scales, but is technically false.

[zoot]

But the same “cosmos” can be described with both Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometries. What does that even mean? The easiness with which you can change your reference system denotes its unimportance…

Utter nonsense. It denotes the exact opposite. The cosmos cannot be described at all using Euclidean geometry because this mathematical system applies to 2 dimensional surfaces only. Neither can it be described using Newtonian geometry because this can only be applied to a 3-dimensional space. Hence we have unexplained physical constants to fill in the gaps. This creative little piece of sleight of hand can make the sums work out but cannot describe the cosmos. Our 4-dimensional continuum has no mathematical system to describe it and therefore the cosmos has not been described. This is what I have repeatedly described as the fundamental conceptual stumbling block in physics which has stalled its progress for a century. Instead physics keeps digging itself ever deeper into confusion because it is using the wrong tools.

This is like building a chimney by flinging the bricks up from the ground instead of fetching a ladder. You finish up with bricks all over the place and a chimney that doesn't work.

Regards Leo

Euclidean geometry does not deal only with two dimensions: it can be generalized to any number of dimensions (three dimensions appear right from the start, in the Elements). Indeed, the structure of the universe was believed to be Euclidean until the acceptance of Einstein's relativity theories. (I'm not sure what "Newtonian geometry" refers to - I assume you mean Newtonian physics, which was based on Euclidean geometry). Today, various parts of the world can still be described using Euclidean geometry - and often are, because it's convenient. We have more accurate models available, but we don't always need to use them.

"Our 4-dimensional continuum has no mathematical system to describe it" - could you explain this a bit more? Modern physical theories already model the universe in 4 dimensions (with some of the more outlandish ones proposing 10, 11, etc dimensions (but I don't think they're relevant to anything beyond the quantum scale)).

[skakos]

But the same “cosmos” can be described with both Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometries. What does that even mean? The easiness with which you can change your reference system denotes its unimportance…

If you accept current physical theory, then Euclidean geometry is false as a description of the cosmos. It provides a convenient approximation at normal human scales, but is technically false.

This is not correct. You can imagine a world where parallels do not meet and a world where parallels meet. And whatever model you choose, the cosmos will remain the "same"...

[Lomax]

This is not correct. You can imagine a world where parallels do not meet and a world where parallels meet. And whatever model you choose, the cosmos will remain the "same"...

What's 'the "same"'? Is it anything like 'the same'?

[zoot]

If you accept current physical theory, then Euclidean geometry is false as a description of the cosmos. It provides a convenient approximation at normal human scales, but is technically false.

This is not correct. You can imagine a world where parallels do not meet and a world where parallels meet. And whatever model you choose, the cosmos will remain the "same"...

No, those models are not the same. There are differences between Euclidean and non-Euclidean space, differences that have empirical consequences. And it so happens that Euclidean space has been falsified (as a description of our universe).

[Obvious Leo]

If you accept current physical theory, then Euclidean geometry is false as a description of the cosmos. It provides a convenient approximation at normal human scales, but is technically false.

This is not correct. You can imagine a world where parallels do not meet and a world where parallels meet. And whatever model you choose, the cosmos will remain the "same"...

No, those models are not the same. There are differences between Euclidean and non-Euclidean space, differences that have empirical consequences. And it so happens that Euclidean space has been falsified (as a description of our universe).

zoot. I guess this is the general notion I was referring to when I spoke of the non-applicability of Newtonian mathematics to Eintseinian relativistic space.

Since I am not actually a mathematician of any sort my choice of language is probably confusing to those that are so I’ll beg their indulgence to explain my meaning in my own simplistic and naive manner.

Instead of merely differentiating between Euclidean and non-Euclidean space I further sub-divide non-Euclidean space into Newtonian and relativistic space. Whether the devising of the calculus is attributable to Newton or Leibniz is uncertain but either way this more sophisticated mathematical tool was necessary to describe the motion of cosmic bodies in 3-D space. However since the description of motion needs a fourth co-ordinate, namely time, Newton made the same intuitive leap that we all do and assumed an external referential frame for time, effectively a time axis from zero to infinity which somehow exists independently of the system being described. A god’s-eye view, if you like. Thus he needed his famous gravitational constant G to describe his model, but such an external referential frame is a conceptual nonsense.

Einstein comes along with his 4-D continuum and manages to show that Newton nearly got it right but not quite. However his theory of general relativity makes the same intuitive mis-assumption about the external referential frame for time and thus once again places the observer outside of the system being observed. In other words GR is not relativistic enough. The “arrow” of time is not a constant and therefore the speed of light is a constant only in a continuously non-constant referential frame in which the observer is contained within the observation. For example because time ticks faster at the top of the flagpole than it does at the bottom, because of the different strength of the gravitational field, light must also travel faster at the top of the flagpole than it does at the bottom. Light cannot travel faster than time. However its speed can only be measured in the referential frame of the observing equipment and so will always be measured as a constant. In “absolute” terms it is no such thing.

Whether we wish to say that gravity warps time or that warped time causes gravity is largely a matter of conceptual taste but the way I look at it is that the warping of space described in GR is actually simply the warping of time in Einstein’s 4-D continuum. In other words what we have been accustomed to calling a space-time continuum could just as easily be called a space-grav continuum since time and gravity are effectively the same relativistic variable. Thus quantum gravity for the seeker of the simple is nothing more than a re-definition of Einstein’s original continuum and an extension of relativity to remove G,c and any other gratuitous mathematical fiddles. There can be no physical constants in a relativistic universe.

Whether this will require an entirely new set of mathematical tools or merely a more nuanced application of our existing ones is beyond my competence to say. However I’m pretty sure that the heterotic string theorists are barking up the wrong tree by seeking answers in unknown dimensions, because their problem is simply a conceptual one. They don’t understand the subtlety of the dimensions they already have.

They’ve placed themselves outside the tent pissing in, instead of inside the tent pissing out.

Regards Leo

P.S. I have been splashing my heretical notions rather promiscuously throughout various forums for some months but I offer a brief summary of my computational model of the cosmos in my blog essay “Where did we go wrong?” (instalments to be digested in order) and expand on it a little in the thread Why not NOT. I remain always open to further questions as long as you keep them simple because I’m fairly sure there will be others who can understand what I’m talking about a lot better than I do myself. The universe is a computer. This first conceptual hurdle is the hardest and after that it all seems bloody obvious.

[Obvious Leo]

Many people believe that the distinction between "logical" and "illogical" is more than obvious. However what we call "logic" (even pure mathematical logic) is based on specific axioms. Change them, and you will have a different set of "truths". Not to mention that specific theories (e.g. Dialethism) say that there is no distinction between "right" and "wrong" either.

What do you think?
Is it radical to say that what is "logical" is purely a matter of choice?

skakos. It is not radical, merely infantile. The illogical has an objective existence which is just as real as a self-validating mathematical equation. For example: If a bird jumps off a ten-storey building it will fly to another safe landing spot. Therefore I must be able to the same thing. This is an illogical conclusion which I don't propose to prove.

Regards Leo

[Positor]

Instead of merely differentiating between Euclidean and non-Euclidean space I further sub-divide non-Euclidean space into Newtonian and relativistic space. Whether the devising of the calculus is attributable to Newton or Leibniz is uncertain but either way this more sophisticated mathematical tool was necessary to describe the motion of cosmic bodies in 3-D space. However since the description of motion needs a fourth co-ordinate, namely time, Newton made the same intuitive leap that we all do and assumed an external referential frame for time, effectively a time axis from zero to infinity which somehow exists independently of the system being described. A god’s-eye view, if you like. Thus he needed his famous gravitational constant G to describe his model, but such an external referential frame is a conceptual nonsense.

Einstein comes along with his 4-D continuum and manages to show that Newton nearly got it right but not quite. However his theory of general relativity makes the same intuitive mis-assumption about the external referential frame for time and thus once again places the observer outside of the system being observed. In other words GR is not relativistic enough. The “arrow” of time is not a constant and therefore the speed of light is a constant only in a continuously non-constant referential frame in which the observer is contained within the observation. For example ,because time ticks faster at the top of the flagpole than it does at the bottom because of the different strength of the gravitational field, light must also travel faster at the top of the flagpole than it does at the bottom. Light cannot travel faster than time. However its speed can only be measured in the referential frame of the observing equipment and so will always be measured as a constant. In “absolute” terms it is no such thing.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but the statements bolded in black above implicitly deny the existence of an external referential frame, whereas those bolded in red seem to require such a frame. Can you please clarify your position on this.

[Obvious Leo]

Indeed I can clarify this. In the computational model time is the referential frame within which reality emerges. The 3 spatial dimensions are an emergent consequence of the non-constant ticking of time. This non-constancy is relativistic all the way down to the tiniest Planck instant so only a single expanding time dimension is necessary to explain the observer effect that we call space. Motion is a temporal phenomenon which we observe spatially.

Regards Leo

[Positor]

Indeed I can clarify this. In the computational model time is the referential frame within which reality emerges.

So time itself has a god's-eye view? Time ticks at different rates relative to....what? Itself? I find this rather confusing.

Can you pinpoint the precise point of disagreement between you and mainstream physicists? I would have thought that careful argument could resolve the matter one way or the other.

[Obvious Leo]

Indeed I can clarify this. In the computational model time is the referential frame within which reality emerges.

So time itself has a god's-eye view? Time ticks at different rates relative to....what? Itself? I find this rather confusing.

Can you pinpoint the precise point of disagreement between you and mainstream physicists? I would have thought that careful argument could resolve the matter one way or the other.

Time ticks at different rates in one Planck space relative to another Planck space because gravity is relativistic all the way down to the quantum level. Time is the referential frame.My disagreement with mainstream physics hinges on this notion of the nature of time. GR uses the god's eye view for its block model and QM ignores time and gravity altogether. If you read my blog and the Why not NOT thread I cover most of the careful argument you seek.

What I'm basically saying is that at its most fundamental quantum level the universe is composed of only two things, these being energy and time. Absolutely everything else is emergent. The quantum unit of energy is the photon and the quantum unit of time is the Planck instant, the shortest possible unit of time in which anything can happen. These are the only two entities necessary or possible for a binary logic gate, although I provisionally hypothesise another boson, namely the graviton, as a switch. I'm not actually convinced that this is necessary but without the maths I can't be certain. The graviton and photon move in the time dimension only. Therefore the entire universe exists in the time dimension only, and only for one Planck instant, the ever moving NOW.

I don't think I can restructure the basic argument in any better form than I already have elsewhere. It's basically a conceptual issue and not a physics issue. Einstein knew this very well and went to his grave in the certain knowledge that QM was nonsense and his own GR model was false. The problem was he was half a century before his time. There was no information science or philosophy of computation to guide his remarkable intuitions. He was also unaware when he constructed his mathematical models that the universe was expanding, which would almost certainly have given him the clue that light moves not through space but through time. It was Einstein who insisted that you can't model the universe from the mathematics. It simply must be done the other way around. He also insisted that the true model would be exquisitely simple, as did John Wheeler some 50 years later.

The entire world of mainstream physics is finally starting to realise that they're doing this science forwards from the maths instead of backwards from the data. This approach is invalid.

Regards Leo

[skakos]

I must be the only one here getting "you will be banned" private messages or having his threads locked so often. Since the thread is called "Does the irrational exist?" I would kindly ask from you to stick to the theme or open a new discussion about "time". I understand the point you are discussing here and indeed time is a very interesting theme which is strongly related to the dogmatism many people have. We often think of "knowing" what Time is (despite the... magazine) and discussions like this can showcase the problem of the existence of "illogical" beautifully. However I am not sure moderators will see that. In order to avoid that, please clarify in one of your next posts the relation of the discussion you are having here with the theme of the thread. I wouldn't like one of my favourite threads locked (again)...

[Positor]

OK, fair enough. I'll say no more about relativity in this thread. Let's return to the following point:

Many people believe that the distinction between "logical" and "illogical" is more than obvious. However what we call "logic" (even pure mathematical logic) is based on specific axioms. Change them, and you will have a different set of "truths". Not to mention that specific theories (e.g. Dialethism) say that there is no distinction between "right" and "wrong" either.

What do you think?
Is it radical to say that what is "logical" is purely a matter of choice?

skakos. It is not radical, merely infantile. The illogical has an objective existence which is just as real as a self-validating mathematical equation. For example: If a bird jumps off a ten-storey building it will fly to another safe landing spot. Therefore I must be able to the same thing. This is an illogical conclusion which I don't propose to prove.

Regards Leo

[skakos]

OK. What about that point? I see it more like this: Logic is based on specific premises and axioms. Change them and you will change what is "logical". What do you think?

PS. A bird that flies and observed physical phenomena are also a good example. What Leo says could be true or false depending on how much you trust induction...

[wajiro]

i understand that most philosophical theories are more of an "outside the box" type of thinking, but maybe, so that i can wrap my head on the whole illogical/logical concept you are writing about, i could ask you a question.

I live excluded from the world, and my only source of food is a farmer fit with all the necessary skills and "know-how" on farming. his only life purpose is to serve me, and make food for me, so that i can eat and live. one day, i have a thought, i can kill the farmer, or not kill the farmer. obviously, killing the farmer would be illogical, because then i will have no food, therefore i would die. explain to me (with a real-life scenario if possible) How would killing the farmer in any, way, shape, philosophical, or non-philosophical form, be logical?

again, i'm not trying to undermine what your saying, nor de-validate your post, i'm just trying to understand.

i'm new to philosophical science and these forums and hope to, in time, understand and expand on my understanding.

thanks,

-Denis

[skakos]

Doing something may seem logical to one person and illogical to another. The criteria differ. You think it is good to do A. Other think it is good to do B. Different logic. Different assumptions. In your example one could easily think that being dependent on that one farmer is bad for you. Living that way could never make you automonous. Someone might want to get "free" of this situation. However killing is not something I would call "logical" (even though we unfortunately see many people who think this is also a "logical" option). This is more a matter of ethics and not of logic. Almost all people agree that killing is bad. When I started this thread I was referring mainly to mathematical/ scientific logic. Killing or not killing is not a matter of being "logical" or not. It is a matter of being an ethical human being.

[JohnD]

More and more I am of the opinion that whether I look at life, science or maths logic is a matter of perception. Logic depends on how an equation or theory is viewed or even which part is being viewed. While in life logic depends on the person living the particular situation and their own particular perception of life and the situation.
You are quite correct Skakos that then the argument moves over to ethics. At least, though ethics do change from time to time, there is some consistency to our view.

[skakos]

More and more I am of the opinion that whether I look at life, science or maths logic is a matter of perception. Logic depends on how an equation or theory is viewed or even which part is being viewed. While in life logic depends on the person living the particular situation and their own particular perception of life and the situation.
You are quite correct Skakos that then the argument moves over to ethics. At least, though ethics do change from time to time, there is some consistency to our view.

Indeed. And we should find what is the common denominator of the views we all have so that we can find a minimum ethical standard. I believe for example that "do not kill others for fun" is something all nations and/or tribes agree upon. Somehow "something" is "logical" for everyone... :)

[Delta4Exile]

Many people believe that the distinction between "logical" and "illogical" is more than obvious. However what we call "logic" (even pure mathematical logic) is based on specific axioms. Change them, and you will have a different set of "truths". Not to mention that specific theories (e.g. Dialethism) say that there is no distinction between "right" and "wrong" either.

What do you think?
Is it radical to say that what is "logical" is purely a matter of choice?

Would say that unless you're talking with a philosopher or mathematician, the word "logic" may only be a figure of speech. It might just as well be "sensible," "rational," or "sound." Especially if the conversation is about ethical questions. "Logic" might relate to more stringent definitions and rules, whereas the subject under discussion could use a similie just as well.

1+1=2 is "logical"

but,

Was is logical or illogical for Zulu warriors to kill young males of their enemies reasoning they'll grow up and seek revenge?

In that latter example, you could just as easily substitute "logical" for "tactically sound" or the like.

As to "Logic is a matter ofchoice?" No. Logic proper is something with rules as per your axioms. If it's about making a choice, then it's more likely you're using "logic" as a similie for something else.

[Lomax]

As to "Logic is a matter ofchoice?" No. Logic proper is something with rules as per your axioms. If it's about making a choice, then it's more likely you're using "logic" as a similie for something else.

I wonder if it's so simple. There are different logics with different axioms, rules for inference, proof theories etc. We can construct a logic on pretty much any axioms. Would you say only one of these logics is logic proper?

[skakos]

Many people believe that the distinction between "logical" and "illogical" is more than obvious. However what we call "logic" (even pure mathematical logic) is based on specific axioms. Change them, and you will have a different set of "truths". Not to mention that specific theories (e.g. Dialethism) say that there is no distinction between "right" and "wrong" either.

What do you think?
Is it radical to say that what is "logical" is purely a matter of choice?

Would say that unless you're talking with a philosopher or mathematician, the word "logic" may only be a figure of speech. It might just as well be "sensible," "rational," or "sound." Especially if the conversation is about ethical questions. "Logic" might relate to more stringent definitions and rules, whereas the subject under discussion could use a similie just as well.

1+1=2 is "logical"

but,

Was is logical or illogical for Zulu warriors to kill young males of their enemies reasoning they'll grow up and seek revenge?

In that latter example, you could just as easily substitute "logical" for "tactically sound" or the like.

As to "Logic is a matter ofchoice?" No. Logic proper is something with rules as per your axioms. If it's about making a choice, then it's more likely you're using "logic" as a similie for something else.

But even the ability to choose is not "logical". You now the "Axiom of choice" in mathematics, right?

1+1 = 2 is "logical" because we said so.
And if we say something else, then it will be something else.

Killing is not in the same category. It is in the field of ethics.

[wishiknewmore]

I don't remember who said it, but it was something like- you can make logical assumptions off of illogical beliefs.-
I think it's possible for people to recognize the difference between logical and illogical, and yes I believe there is a distinction, but beliefs are blinding. Our thoughts can be so easily warped. If something is said enough times and enough people believe it, or if you were raised to think a certain way about things, it may not matter what "makes sense".