Well.. @Vita14 has stated that using logic to prove logic essentially invalidates itself, thus we are a proverbial hamster running on a treadmill (see illustration A)
Illustration A:
What is the opposite of logic?
- Thread starter Kmal
- Start date
Well.. @Vita14 has stated that using logic to prove logic essentially invalidates itself, thus we are a proverbial hamster running on a treadmill (see illustration A)
Illustration A:
Do you really think logic is just a word created by man to put things in a box? If so, how come we don't manage to make sense of anything at all outside of its perimeters?
If it were just an arbitrary name for some categorization of things, surely it would be a just as replaceable as other categorizations of things. But it does not seem to be; rather it is part of the how of the categorization. "Logic" as a name is arbitrary insofar as any name is; but what it attaches to, which we call logic, is surely not just a word.
I think you're committing a naturalistic fallacy of some sort.
I don't think faith is the opposite of logic. Faith and logic seem to be belong to entirely different realms.
That's an interesting point
You seem to be saying that maybe, in "what lies outside logic", there lies logical systems that we haven't worked out yet, and therefore that may seem like chaos, but which in fact are not. I think this is possible, indeed.But maybe we could solve the issue with a distinction here - between (in abstract terms) chaos as what lies irremediably outside of logic; and as-yet unknown logical systems.
What do you think?
I really like some of the points you make here, and the general structure and flow of your arguments. Very inspiring
However, I do wonder if your conclusions might not be invalidated by a false premise.
At the beginning, you say the following: "We could say that logic works because causality is a reliable principle of the universe. Cause and effect is so reliable that logic becomes a valid system of reasoning." I do not see how logic follows from the reliability of cause and effect. Such reliability is verified empirically; but logic is not empirical. It is neither subservient to physics nor to the theory of knowledge. It seems to transcend all of these, to be 'prior' to them (in a sense).
Hence, all of what follows in your argument, despite how interesting it is (I think it might inspire some of my own writings, especially as regards the concept of time), is to me called into question. But what do you think about this?
I think you have mistaken @Ren when saying that cause and effect are not part of logic itself .I argue that logic have prior causality or it could not be used to form conclusions, nor it would have any consequenses.
Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect),[citation needed] where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first
In logical thinking there is also connection of things that are responsible and dependent, and this is my understanding thing that is called "Logical consequence".
If there is consequence, there must be cause and that property is prior. Meaning in terms of logic there is also prior causality with in the logic itself. -because its related to thinking, and logical thinking is work of mind, there must be prior causality as a form of logic in a structure of an mind to form conclusions and see logical consequenses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence
Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect),[citation needed] where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first
In logical thinking there is also connection of things that are responsible and dependent, and this is my understanding thing that is called "Logical consequence".
If there is consequence, there must be cause and that property is prior. Meaning in terms of logic there is also prior causality with in the logic itself. -because its related to thinking, and logical thinking is work of mind, there must be prior causality as a form of logic in a structure of an mind to form conclusions and see logical consequenses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence
A simple syllogism will be enough to show that this isn't true.
Socrates is Greek (Premise 1)
All Greeks are human (Premise 2)
Therefore, Socrates is human (Conclusion)
It should be obvious that there is no relation of causation here. The facts (i.e. true premises) that Socrates is Greek, and that all Greeks are human, do not cause Socrates' humanity. Socrates' humanity is not the effect of his being Greek and of all Greeks being human. Rather, it is the logical consequence of these two premises.
You are confusing a relation of logical inference with a relation of cause and effect. I should add that this suggests that you should pay more attention to those Wikipedia articles on the basics of logic, which you are sharing as if to imply that the people here don't know what logic is.
Last edited:
You are confusing a relation of logical inference with a relation of cause and effect.
Sorry but you did not understood. I did not even give you that kind of example. You confuse the premise and conclusion to be either causally causing eachother or not, but I am not saying this, nor referrin to this. I am talking metaphysics of logic. I am saying logic itself has property of causality with in the logic. That causality is not causing premises and conclusion to be causally connected in real life, but it cause syntax that can deduct conclusions. Anything can be misunderstood, but even misunderstanding needs causality.
Sorry but you did not understood. I did not even give you that kind of example. You confuse the premise and conclusion to be either causally causing eachother or not, but I am not saying this, nor referrin to this. I am talking metaphysics of logic. I am saying logic itself has property of causality with in the logic. That causality is not causing premises and conclusion to be causally connected in real life, but it cause syntax that can deduct conclusions. Anything can be misunderstood, but even misunderstanding needs causality.
...Wat?
Okay, let's say we just agree to disagree then. I do not think we will be able to reach a common ground.
Set of axioms about methaphysics of logic,
logical thinking is work of mind, there must be prior causality syntax as a form of logic in a structure of an mind to form conclusions and see consequenses.
If the logic did not have causality with its own right, it could not push the conlusions out.
Logic need to have its own form of causality in it, or there would not be conlusions.
Logics causality is not dependend of premises and conclusions causal relations, but only relations of logic itself.
logical thinking is work of mind, there must be prior causality syntax as a form of logic in a structure of an mind to form conclusions and see consequenses.
If the logic did not have causality with its own right, it could not push the conlusions out.
Logic need to have its own form of causality in it, or there would not be conlusions.
Logics causality is not dependend of premises and conclusions causal relations, but only relations of logic itself.
Last edited:
Reality is logical, so everything is logical, therefore there is no opposite.
The only useful interpretation is "sensible" or "comprehensible". So, the opposite of those.
The only useful interpretation is "sensible" or "comprehensible". So, the opposite of those.
That's an interesting point
But maybe we could solve the issue with a distinction here - between (in abstract terms) chaos as what lies irremediably outside of logic; and as-yet-unknown logical systems.
What do you think?
I'm not sure this solves the issue. I see logic as a framework or tool we have crafted from our observation and testing of the laws that govern the universe. It is like muscle humans have that can be exercised and toned. That's why I don't think chaos as what lies irremediably outside of logic; as-yet-unknown logical systems makes sense because, it's not an unknown logical system, it's just an unknown which we can't comprehend as of yet with the data available.
D
Deleted member 16771
Hahaha! Well, my first thought was this...
As a non-mathematician, there was so much in there that I just didn't understand. The jargon use of normal words is an issue, as is the references to many concepts I've never encountered. So in terms of mathematics, I'm just not qualified enough to form an opinion.
In terms of it's general import, however, I'm having a different problem - I don't trust myself not to misuse it by making inferences from it into other fields. Philosophical questions unfold exponentially from it.
I will say, however, that it seems to question, first, the fundamental knowability of the universe (I don't mind this so much), and second, the probability that, in fact, the universe is an internally accordant system. Let's say that the axioms of the universe are the fundamental forces, then the theorem seems to imply that there will always be some element of either incompleteness or inconsistency.
I'm suspicious of misusing it when I say this, however, because that's not what the theorem proves - I would have to comprehend the technical mathematics in order to try to deduce if it applied to all systems. For instance, I'm really tempted to make the classic charlatan's mistake and say something like, 'ooh, maybe this is what the weirdness of quantum mechanics is! It's the universe producing "statements" that are simultaneously true and false!'
In any case, absolutely fascinating.
As a non-mathematician, there was so much in there that I just didn't understand. The jargon use of normal words is an issue, as is the references to many concepts I've never encountered. So in terms of mathematics, I'm just not qualified enough to form an opinion.
In terms of it's general import, however, I'm having a different problem - I don't trust myself not to misuse it by making inferences from it into other fields. Philosophical questions unfold exponentially from it.
I will say, however, that it seems to question, first, the fundamental knowability of the universe (I don't mind this so much), and second, the probability that, in fact, the universe is an internally accordant system. Let's say that the axioms of the universe are the fundamental forces, then the theorem seems to imply that there will always be some element of either incompleteness or inconsistency.
I'm suspicious of misusing it when I say this, however, because that's not what the theorem proves - I would have to comprehend the technical mathematics in order to try to deduce if it applied to all systems. For instance, I'm really tempted to make the classic charlatan's mistake and say something like, 'ooh, maybe this is what the weirdness of quantum mechanics is! It's the universe producing "statements" that are simultaneously true and false!'
In any case, absolutely fascinating.
D
Deleted member 16771
@Ren Yeah, if you look at my post after that ('Actually that's not true...') I refute my own argument, so I totally agree with you there.
Causality is fundamental to the thought processes required to do logic, but not fundamental to logic itself, since all that logic requires is valid axioms.
Therefore I moved on to try to define a 'state of existence' which is entirely devoid of valid axioms. Like I say, I can barely imagine it, it would be a kind of state without rules, formless pure potential, or even indistinguishable from non-existence.
In any hierarchy of concepts therefore, logic seems only to depend upon existence itself. Even, logic is synonymous with existence. It's the same thing, like your Wittgenstein quote relates.
Causality is fundamental to the thought processes required to do logic, but not fundamental to logic itself, since all that logic requires is valid axioms.
Therefore I moved on to try to define a 'state of existence' which is entirely devoid of valid axioms. Like I say, I can barely imagine it, it would be a kind of state without rules, formless pure potential, or even indistinguishable from non-existence.
In any hierarchy of concepts therefore, logic seems only to depend upon existence itself. Even, logic is synonymous with existence. It's the same thing, like your Wittgenstein quote relates.
If mind is not causal, then i am wrong.
if Mind is causal on its own right,
and Logic is part of mind.
Therefore logic is causal property on an mind.
If you say mind is not causal, what do you mean?
if Mind is causal on its own right,
and Logic is part of mind.
Therefore logic is causal property on an mind.
If you say mind is not causal, what do you mean?
Don't you think that logic is fundamentally different from physical laws, though? In what way is logic dependent upon observation and testing?
But the premise that "logic is part of mind" (Premise 2 in your syllogism) is not only far from obvious: it would actually be rejected by the immense majority of both philosophers and mathematicians. The idea that logic is part of mind is so strange to me that I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is plausible.
I agree with you
Wittgenstein calls this realm "what cannot be spoken about", adding that we should "remain silent" about it.I think this is his way of saying: if there is something beyond logic, it isn't something that we can grasp with our conceptual apparatus.
D
Deleted member 16771
@Vita14 I'd actually be interested to see if you could do this, since I think there's at least a superficially plausible argument you could make.
I'm thinking here about the philosophy of qualia. That our experience of the world is fundamentally subjectively generated. Just as colours or tastes are qualic (is that the adjectival form? Not sure) objects - experiences that only exist as a means for us to interface with the world - could you argue that 'logic' itself is similarly qualic?
On the broader point, I think a confusion is being made between doing logic and logic itself. One needs causality to function (like you say, Vita), another does not.
D
Deleted member 16771
I agree with you
I think this is his way of saying: if there is something beyond logic, it isn't something that we can grasp with our conceptual apparatus.
Ha, yeah. It's just 'not the case' to quote the Tractatus. Where does he say we should stay silent?
Actually, 'Wittgenstein was right' is valid for a lot of this thread - we've fallen into a language game full of ambiguity right now. In fact, I think Vita is making really strong, valid points, just about a slightly different concept.
It's something like the difference between logical reasoning (Vita's understanding) and the 'logicality' (if you'll permit that term) of the universe (our understanding).
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I agree. I have been assuming from the beginning that the thread was referring to what you call "logicality" (a very useful term here to avoid confusion!)
But for faulty logical reasoning to be recognized as faulty, the structure of logicality must remain constant. So I don't think this threatens the pervasiveness of logic.
Do you really think logic is just a word created by man to put things in a box? If so, how come we don't manage to make sense of anything at all outside of its perimeters?
If it were just an arbitrary name for some categorization of things, surely it would be a just as replaceable as other categorizations of things. But it does not seem to be; rather it is part of the how of the categorization. "Logic" as a name is arbitrary insofar as any name is; but what it attaches to, which we call logic, is surely not just a word.
I think you're committing a naturalistic fallacy of some sort.
I don't think faith is the opposite of logic. Faith and logic seem to be belong to entirely different realms.
That's an interesting point
But maybe we could solve the issue with a distinction here - between (in abstract terms) chaos as what lies irremediably outside of logic; and as-yet unknown logical systems.
What do you think?
Everything that lies outside the normal bounds of logic that can't be explained, but you still believe is faith...