![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Asparagus wrote:Why does the world conform to logic?
Asparagus wrote:The basis of the question is partly noting posters like RJG, who seems to recommend logic...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG » January 30th, 2018, 5:53 pm wrote:Asparagus wrote:Why does the world conform to logic?
The world has no other option of making sense.
RJG wrote:There is no way we can invalidate logic without invalidating our own invalidation.
RJG wrote:Logic can overturn Science, but Science can never overturn Logic. If something is logically impossible, then all the science in the world cannot make the impossible, possible.
- The truths of Science are constantly evolving and changing. The truths of Science are fallible.
- The truths of Logic/Math are constant; never changing. The truths of Logic/Math are non-fallible.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG wrote:There is no way we can invalidate logic without invalidating our own invalidation.
Asparagus wrote:I wouldn't expect to use logic as a weapon against logic.
Asparagus wrote:A valid logical argument is like a machine: garbage in, garbage out.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
RJG » January 30th, 2018, 8:04 pm wrote:RJG wrote:There is no way we can invalidate logic without invalidating our own invalidation.Asparagus wrote:I wouldn't expect to use logic as a weapon against logic.
So you would prefer 'illogic' as your weapon of choice??
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » January 30th, 2018, 8:04 pm wrote:
We live in a close enough world because we cannot deal with the infinite.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Asparagus » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:50 am wrote:wolfhnd » January 30th, 2018, 8:04 pm wrote:
We live in a close enough world because we cannot deal with the infinite.
What aspect of the world is infinite?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » January 31st, 2018, 12:24 am wrote:The world - by which I assume you mean the universe - does not conform to logic.
Logic is one of the tools that an insignificant semi-conscious ape species, on an insignificant planet near the rim of a typical barred spiral galaxy uses to describe what little it is able to perceive of how the universe functions.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » January 31st, 2018, 12:55 am wrote:The problem with Serpent's view is that the universe derives it's meaning from consciousness.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » January 30th, 2018, 11:55 pm wrote:The problem with Serpent's view is that the universe derives it's meaning from consciousness.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Asparagus » January 31st, 2018, 9:01 am wrote:Logic as descriptive? A=A. What does that describe?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » January 31st, 2018, 2:06 pm wrote:It's being asked if logic is "built into" the universe, i.e. that it's ontic foundation is innately mathematical. In that case, our symbol sets are the tools to grasp the logic inherent in the universe. I tend to go with that, on the principle that if our brains structure our perceptions in a lawful and logical manner, then they were probably grown/developed in a universe that is lawful and logical.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » January 31st, 2018, 1:00 pm wrote:Asparagus » January 31st, 2018, 9:01 am wrote:Logic as descriptive? A=A. What does that describe?
Not much, as far as your equation goes. But you've started on the Roman Alphabet, and that's a very useful device. I said logic is a tool - not that all humans are skilled at using it.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Asparagus » January 31st, 2018, 1:36 pm wrote:My equation? It's the Law of Identity. So I take it you're backtracking on the notion that logic is descriptive.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » January 31st, 2018, 4:18 pm wrote:Asparagus » January 31st, 2018, 1:36 pm wrote:My equation? It's the Law of Identity. So I take it you're backtracking on the notion that logic is descriptive.
No. I said logic is one of the tools humans use to communicate with other humans about the little they can discern of how those elements of the universe that they are able perceive interact in the functioning of the universe.
The example [A=A] that you cited is not fairly representative of the descriptive powers of logic.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Asparagus » January 31st, 2018, 3:20 pm wrote:Could you point out a logical principle that would help me understand your point?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Asparagus » January 30th, 2018, 12:47 pm wrote:If you're skeptical that it does, feel free to talk about that ...
Feynman wrote:Look again at our box of mixed white and black molecules. Now it is possible, if we wait long enough, by sheer, grossly improbable, but possible, accident, that the distribution of molecules gets to be mostly white on one side and mostly black on the other. After that, as time goes on and accidents continue, they get more mixed up again.
Thus one possible explanation of the high degree of order in the present-day world is that it is just a question of luck.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:57 pm wrote:wolfhnd » January 30th, 2018, 11:55 pm wrote:The problem with Serpent's view is that the universe derives it's meaning from consciousness.
I [an insignificant but perpetually self-promoting ape, stuck to an insignificant ball of damp rock, orbiting a little no-'count yellow star near the edge of one of billions and billions of galaxies, each consisting of billions and billions of stars and whatever-all is moiling about the interstices] declare that "the universe derives it's meaning from my consciousness.
OKAYWE'LLLETYOUSTHINKTHATWHAT'SITMATTERFORTHEMICROSECONDOFYOUREXISTENCE
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Asparagus » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:02 pm wrote:wolfhnd » January 31st, 2018, 12:55 am wrote:The problem with Serpent's view is that the universe derives it's meaning from consciousness.
Are you putting logic in the domain of consciousness? Or is it an aspect of the universe and we detect it (perhaps because being residents of the universe, it's part of us as well)?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd wrote:
It would be better to drop the baggage that comes along with the term logic than try to untangle the various semantical issues that arise out of historical context.
We could not impose order on a universe that was totally chaotic. Logic imposes order subjectively.
As I said formal logic is a great communication tool. For discussing "truth" I prefer to leave the term logic aside and substitute the terms evidence and reason because they avoid the problem of absolutes.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » February 1st, 2018, 3:00 am wrote:I'm suggesting that your philosophy is terminal because to survive you have to act as if there is meaning.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Asparagus » January 30th, 2018, 8:47 pm wrote:I would extend the title with: assuming that it does. If you're skeptical that it does, feel free to talk about that, but I was really aiming the question at people who assert that conforming to logic is a path to truth (without too much in the way of religious vapors, just the regular old truth.)
The basis of the question is partly noting posters like RJG, who seems to recommend logic, and it's partly from my continuing reading of Plotinus, who partakes of some Stoicism. The Stoic Logos (the rational principle operating in the world) was supposedly hot air. What would an updated version of that be? Or do we take a totally different approach to the question these days?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests