Argument from Logic

[spamandham]

Logic only comes into play when we interpret our observations and put them into language. Logic reflects the structure of our language (and our categorizing).

 

So we can never use logic to prove anything about reality, but logic may help us not to come up with statements, that contradicts each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is basically the point I was trying to make. It isn't possible to prove that logic is more than a construct of our own minds.

 

Showing that it is impossible to disprove the axioms does not show that logic is fundamental outside our own minds, since if we are limited by logical thought, of course argumentum absurdum would make no sense to us.

 

But the universe is under no obligation to conform to our minds. If A and ~A was actual, we could never know it.

[Asimov]

We have no reason to think that the universe doesn't operate logically...so I don't see your point except as conjecture.

[♦ ficino ♦]

But the universe is under no obligation to conform to our minds.  If  A and ~A was actual, we could never know it.

 

Hi, spamandham. Like Asimov, I disagree with you here. I don't think your last sentence gives insight into the universe because it strikes me as a string of words that doesn't convey meaning. I think what you wrote there might be technically nonsensical, because the premise of your last sentence contains a contradiction, and anything follows from a contradiction. So the converse, "we could know it" is also true.

 

I think it's one thing to say that our minds are limited. I rather like Schopenhauer's discussion, trying to "correct" Kant, of the categories of our understanding: the "world" is all the stuff as it goes by on our mental screen. We get no knowledge of the thing in itself; we know only its representation in consciousness. But to say that is different from enunciating a string of words that violates the fundamental axioms of meaningful discourse, saying that the resulting utterance can mean something to an entity that has different innate axioms of meaning. When I say that some other entity "can assert that X is A and ~A under the same set of relations," I'm not saying anything. I don't know that you'd disagree with this, though.

 

Is it still a worthwhile question whether human logic is valid for all entities, or under all conditions of thought? As far as I've seen, animal behavior seems to presume awareness that could be expressed in propositions that rest on the same axioms that logicians usally set forth. My my cat, for example, knows that one individual is a cat (knows the universal concretely), knows another is a human, knows the cat is not a human nor a non-cat... knows that the chipmunk that ran inside the piece of drain pipe on the ground is still in there, hasn't become a non-chipmunk... acts as though it's either true or false that the chipmunk is still there... I'm not saying that Mitten can formulate propositions, but I am saying she has intelligence and a rudimentary logic not inconsistent with mine. Schopenhauer's famous example of his "sehr kluger Pudel" was to show that his poodle understood causality, i.e. its mind organized experience, in the same way as humans do.

 

What about superhuman entities, or God? I don't know what it can mean to say that God can create a square triangle or that dwellers of another universe will conceive of a circle as something other than a figure whose points are all equidistant from a central point.

 

Maybe I am totally misunderstanding you. Part of my reason for blabbing on so long, apart from being loquacious, is that I've run across Christians (I said it myself as a Christian, too) who say things like, God is above logic. I don't think you would hold that.

[spamandham]

Hi, spamandham.  Like Asimov, I disagree with you here.  I don't think your last sentence gives insight into the universe

 

It isn't meant to give insight into the universe. We know only what we perceive. If the ultimate reality is different, we can't know it, because it is filtered by our perceptions.

 

To say "the universe conforms to my perceptions because that's how I perceive it and can't even place into words anything else" is just as axiomatic as the identity theorem, or law of excluded middle.

 

I agree that it isn't possible to even put into meaningful words anything that violates logic, but that does not prove that logic is fundamental outside our own perceptions.

 

We know we are limited in thought and in language by logic. But we do not know that logic extends beyond our own perception.

 

Of course, there is no reason to suspect the ultimate nature of reality is different from what we perceive, but there is also no way to demonstrate that isn't. You can't use logical arguments to accomplish that, because you can't prove that the axioms of logic extend beyond our own perceptions and language. The axioms of logic are accepted, because we can't fail to accept them, but not be because they have been proven independently. What we don't know, is whether or not our inability to fail to accept them extends beyond our own perceptions and thoughts.

 

So we're right back where we started.

 

Maybe I am totally misunderstanding you.  Part of my reason for blabbing on so long, apart from being loquacious, is that I've run across Christians (I said it myself as a Christian, too) who say things like, God is above logic.  I don't think you would hold that.

 

I don't hold the existence of god, nor do I hold that the nature of reality is different from our perceptions. I merely hold that there are things that are unknowable.

 

I'm more interested in understanding both the nature of reality relative to my perceptions, as well as the limit of what is knowable, than I am worried about "god is above logic" style statements.

 

"god is above logic" can be refuted merely by appealing to what is knowable. Such a statement is not knowable. Everything must behave logically from our perspective.

[Asimov]

It isn't meant to give insight into the universe.  We know only what we perceive.  If the ultimate reality is different, we can't know it, because it is filtered by our perceptions.

 

Who says that there is an ultimate reality to know.

 

To say "the universe conforms to my perceptions because that's how I perceive it and can't even place into words anything else" is just as axiomatic as the identity theorem, or law of excluded middle.

 

It's not axiomatic, because it's not self-evident. In order to get a better idea of what reality, and if our perceptions are true, is if we get MORE people to observe reality...hence science.

 

I agree that it isn't possible to even put into meaningful words anything that violates logic, but that does not prove that logic is fundamental outside our own perceptions. 

 

And saying that we have memories of the past doesn't prove that we weren't created yesterday...

 

We know we are limited in thought and in language by logic.  But we do not know that logic extends beyond our own perception.

 

Nor do we know that it doesn't.

 

Of course, there is no reason to suspect the ultimate nature of reality is different from what we perceive, but there is also no way to demonstrate that isn't.  You can't use logical arguments to accomplish that, because you can't prove that the axioms of logic extend beyond our own perceptions and language.  The axioms of logic are accepted, because we can't fail to accept them, but not be because they have been proven independently.  What we don't know, is whether or not our inability to fail to accept them extends beyond our own perceptions and thoughts.

 

So we're right back where we started.

I don't hold the existence of god, nor do I hold that the nature of reality is different from our perceptions.  I merely hold that there are things that are unknowable.

 

I'm more interested in understanding both the nature of reality relative to my perceptions, as well as the limit of what is knowable, than I am worried about "god is above logic" style statements. 

 

"god is above logic" can be refuted merely by appealing to what is knowable.  Such a statement is not knowable.  Everything must behave logically from our perspective.

 

I agree with your posts, spam...but I see no reason to think that logic doesn't extend beyond our perception of reality, because I see no reason to think that there IS an ultimate perception of reality.

[thomas]

But the universe is under no obligation to conform to our minds.  If  A and ~A was actual, we could never know it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To say that something is in state A is an interpretation of what is going on. State A (or whatever) is a label we use, for what we see. I agree with you, that the univers is free of logic, but nevertheless, a situation cannot both be labeled "A" and "not A" at the same time.

[Ouroboros]

To say that something is in state A is an interpretation of what is going on. State A (or whatever) is a label we use, for what we see. I agree with you, that the univers is free of logic, but nevertheless, a situation cannot both be labeled "A" and "not A" at the same time.

 

Somewhere the A and Not A must exist, becuase we can't persive Universe Exists, and Universe Does Not Exist. So the law of non contradiction does have some relevance, and logic too, in this universe.

 

When it comes to is God good, and does God include everything, does he include the Devil too and still all good? If that is true, then logic doesn't apply outside the universe.

[spamandham]

Who says that there is an ultimate reality to know.

 

There is an ultimate reality, but it may not extend beyond your perceptions.

 

And saying that we have memories of the past doesn't prove that we weren't created yesterday...

 

That's the spirit! There are things we accept that can not be known.

 

I agree with your posts, spam...but I see no reason to think that logic doesn't extend beyond our perception of reality, because I see no reason to think that there IS an ultimate perception of reality.

 

How can logic extend beyond your perception of reality if there isn't an ultimate reality to which your perceptions are relative?

 

I'm not arguing that logic doesn't extend beyond our perception of reality, or that there's any reason to suspect it doesn't. I'm merely pointing out that we can't know that it does.

[Asimov]

There is an ultimate reality, but it may not extend beyond your perceptions.

 

Ok, sure.

 

That's the spirit!  There are things we accept that can not be known. 

 

It sounds a lot like solipsism, which I don't like. It's just like God...if there's no justifiable or valid reason to accept that we were all created yesterday, then I don't see why I should accept it.

 

I accept the possibility of what you are saying, and that we may have been created yesterday, but I don't accept it as a reality.

 

How can logic extend beyond your perception of reality if there isn't an ultimate reality to which your perceptions are relative? 

 

What if reality is partially created by what you and others perceive?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi, guys. I think this thread is dealing with a lot of important issues. I'm not sure I can disentangle what I think myself about them. Especially now after staggering home from work.

 

for what they're worth, my assumptions:

 

language is a tool. we use it to make statements. statements are true or false and have to include at least one concept or universal (not sure I can push this requirement)

 

concepts are not language-dependent. language is a tool for expressing concepts

 

the brain is an organ by which we think, emote, regulate the rest of the body, etc. the content of our thought consists of propositions/statements

 

propositions and the concepts they encode are not brain-dependent. The brain is an organ by which we think of concepts. the concepts are not brain-dependent because we can transmit them via language (a tool) to other people, even across centuries via writing or other instruments of conveying propositions (and feelings, etc - hi, Nietzsche and Yeats and all youse guys!)

 

so, on some level I believe that concepts are mind-independent. The circle is always the circle for any mind, human or otherwise.

 

logic is a function, not of language, but of ordering concepts in propositions. any language can and should function logically. there is only one logic of propositions (they say Polish is especially well adapted to logic)

 

my belief is that any mind of any entity must reason by axioms that other minds of other entities must share - that's because concepts are not brain dependent.

 

aliens in another universe should understand our math if they understand our symbols

 

god if there is a god or gods cannot violate the laws of thought

 

 

I am not sure my assumptions can be proved, especially those at the bottom of the list

 

OK, it's off for some krasaki kai fagito kai koutsobolia (wine and food and gossip) with my Greek friends - ancestors of the inventors of formal logic (heh heh)

 

spamandham, I'm not sure I can argue this but I sense something is "off" with the idea that non-human entities could have a radically different but valid logic

 

 

take care

[Guest vanesa]

If GOd is beyond logic and understands everything above logic, then how can it communicate its true intentions to its human prophets? (much like attempting to have a Commodore 64 from the 80s communicate with a computer on the web through a modem. It can't.) If prophets are only human (even as they may claim otherwise), then how can they decipher messages made by an intelligence that compares to us as we compare to amoebas?

[Ouroboros]

If GOd is beyond logic and understands everything above logic, then how can it communicate its true intentions to its human prophets? (much like attempting to have a Commodore 64 from the 80s communicate with a computer on the web through a modem. It can't.) If prophets are only human (even as they may claim otherwise), then how can they decipher messages made by an intelligence that compares to us as we compare to amoebas?

 

You had a Commodore 64? Cool! I had a VIC20.

 

--- Total irrelevant to the topic, sorry for the interruption, go one now...

[Amethyst]

You had a Commodore 64? Cool! I had a VIC20.

 

LOL...I had a PC clone nobody's ever heard of. The brand was called Eagle. It's now defunct.

 

Maybe someone needs to start a historic PCs thread.

[Asimov]

Hi, guys.  I think this thread is dealing with a lot of important issues.  I'm not sure I can disentangle what I think myself about them.  Especially now after staggering home from work.

 

for what they're worth, my assumptions:

 

language is a tool.  we use it to make statements.  statements are true or false and have to include at least one concept or universal (not sure I can push this requirement)

 

concepts are not language-dependent.  language is a tool for expressing concepts

 

the brain is an organ by which we think, emote, regulate the rest of the body, etc.  the content of our thought consists of propositions/statements

 

propositions and the concepts they encode are not brain-dependent.  The brain is an organ by which we think of concepts.  the concepts are not brain-dependent because we can transmit them via language (a tool) to other people, even across centuries via writing or other instruments of conveying propositions (and feelings, etc - hi, Nietzsche and Yeats and all youse guys!)

 

so, on some level I believe that concepts are mind-independent.  The circle is always the circle for any mind, human or otherwise.

 

logic is a function, not of language, but of ordering concepts in propositions.  any language can and should function logically.  there is only one logic of propositions (they say Polish is especially well adapted to logic)

 

my belief is that any mind of any entity must reason by axioms that other minds of other entities must share - that's because concepts are not brain dependent.

 

aliens in another universe should understand our math if they understand our symbols

 

god if there is a god or gods cannot violate the laws of thought

I am not sure my assumptions can be proved, especially those at the bottom of the list

 

OK, it's off for some krasaki kai fagito kai koutsobolia (wine and food and gossip) with my Greek friends - ancestors of the inventors of formal logic (heh heh)

 

spamandham, I'm not sure I can argue this but I sense something is "off" with the idea that non-human entities could have a radically different but valid logic

take care

 

 

I largely agree with this, ficino, I think you and I think a lot a like.

 

I just had a thought while reading this.

 

Our minds are also part of the universe, made from it's components. We live in it, and we are connected to it. So are perception of the universe is a perception as a part of the universe, not as an outside observer. So this could mean that the way we function and perceive things (in terms of logic and natural laws) is the same way those objects we observe function (logically and naturally).

[spamandham]

spamandham, I'm not sure I can argue this but I sense something is "off" with the idea that non-human entities could have a radically different but valid logic

 

They can't, from our perspective.

 

[begin total speculative rant]

I sometimes wonder if the universe is logical merely because such logic is possible in some metaphysical sense with greater degrees of freedom(total chaos). That possibility is actually why we are here in the first place, and so of course we are bound by it and can not even think about it's falsification, let alone put the idea into words.

[end rant]