Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Terrapin Station]

So far reality seems to make sense, everything seems to be ordered, logical, so we can make laws about it. It's even possible to explain QM in a logical way, it's just extremely difficult. But we don't observe things happening that are patently illogical or a-logical, that just can't make sense to us in any way.

I may be misinterpreting you, but I think you're making the widespread mistake of conflating logic with what is often called common sense. If we regard something as violating common sense we usually mean that it violates a set of basic inductively derived laws which we hold in our minds as a result of our many years of day-to-day observations. An example might be the idea that every event has a cause or that objects can't spontaneously appear or disappear. But those things aren't violations of logic. A violation of logic is a linguistic contradiction. A proposition like "objects can appear from nothing" is not a violation of logic. It is a violation of inductively derived laws which are based on empirical observations. There's a difference.

In your example of QM: If it was not possible to explain it in a logical way then it would not be a theory at all. It would be gibberish. Any problems that there might be with something like QM are nothing to do with potential violations of logic. They are to do with violations of common sense, as I've described it above.

Yeah, I keep explaining that on the board in general, because people keep invoking logic where it seems like they have little idea what logic really is, but so far it has seemed like talking to a wall.

[Atla]

But it's also possible that, say on a larger scale, reality does in fact behave in ways that patently make no sense to us, and can never make sense to us. We just haven't observed such behaviour yet. Maybe reality is patently illogical or a-logical, and in a way that would be the end of the road for philosophy there.

Again, I may be misinterpreting you, but I think that if reality does behave in ways that patently make no sense to us then that would mean that it behaves in ways that do not fit the pattern that we have extrapolated, using induction, from our experiences. It would not mean that reality is illogical. Logic is not a property of reality. It is a property of our propositions.

I meant that it may behave without following any patterns at all, or in self-contradictory ways, so it could never make sense to us. We couldn't even make propositions about it.

[Terrapin Station]

Again, I may be misinterpreting you, but I think that if reality does behave in ways that patently make no sense to us then that would mean that it behaves in ways that do not fit the pattern that we have extrapolated, using induction, from our experiences. It would not mean that reality is illogical. Logic is not a property of reality. It is a property of our propositions.

I meant that it may behave without following any patterns at all, or in self-contradictory ways, so it could never make sense to us. We couldn't even make propositions about it.

Re contradictions, there are paraconsistent logics.

[Steve3007]

Yeah, I keep explaining that on the board in general, because people keep invoking logic where it seems like they have little idea what logic really is, but so far it has seemed like talking to a wall.

I think that this is the core error that RJG makes. I think, ironically (given his stated views about what he refers to as "indoctrination") it possibly stems from his being immersed in (indoctrinated by?) the idea that time is absolute (from Newton) and that Cartesian coordinate systems are things which can be regarded as existing in the absence of the things that they were invented to measure (from Descartes and Euclid). i.e. he is product of a Newtonian/Cartesian/Euclidean culture.

[Steve3007]

Re contradictions, there are paraconsistent logics.

You've mentioned these before, and it's clear that you have (as you claimed when you arrived here) studied logic much more rigorously than anyone else here, including me. So I'll Google "paraconsistent logics" to find out more.

[Atla]

I meant that it may behave without following any patterns at all, or in self-contradictory ways, so it could never make sense to us. We couldn't even make propositions about it.

Re contradictions, there are paraconsistent logics.

Sure, if you stretch the word logic to also encompass the illogical.

[Steve3007]

I meant that it may behave without following any patterns at all, or in self-contradictory ways, so it could never make sense to us. We couldn't even make propositions about it.

Yes, that's what I thought you meant. As I said, I don't regard "not following any patterns at all" as being illogical. A random sequence of numbers or an unpredictable sequence of events is not illogical. Sets of propositions and conclusions - arguments - are logical or illogical.

If it turned out that the fundamental principle of the Universe was "sh!t happens" - i.e. it's a set of random, fundamentally unpredictable events, that would make it unpredictable and therefore not amenable to inductively derived laws (such as those created by common sense and its more formal cousin - science). But it wouldn't make it illogical.

[Terrapin Station]

Re contradictions, there are paraconsistent logics.

Sure, if you stretch the word logic to also encompass the illogical.

How would you define what logic is?

[Atla]

I meant that it may behave without following any patterns at all, or in self-contradictory ways, so it could never make sense to us. We couldn't even make propositions about it.

Yes, that's what I thought you meant. As I said, I don't regard "not following any patterns at all" as being illogical. A random sequence of numbers or an unpredictable sequence of events is not illogical. Sets of propositions and conclusions - arguments - are logical or illogical.

If it turned out that the fundamental principle of the Universe was "sh!t happens" - i.e. it's a set of random, fundamentally unpredictable events, that would make it unpredictable and therefore not amenable to inductively derived laws (such as those created by common sense and its more formal cousin - science). But it wouldn't make it illogical.

Yeah and I happen to think that subscribing to this new trend of only talking about logic in the context of relating concepts within propositions and conclusions in any way we want, is a mistake. I think most of the great thinkers of the past, at least in physics, got so far because they assumed a primordial order of the universe that can be described using the three classical laws of though (THE logic), and again and again it turned out that they are correct.

[Terrapin Station]

Yeah and I happen to think that subscribing to this new trend of only talking about logic in the context of relating concepts within propositions and conclusions in any way we want, is a mistake. I think most of the great thinkers of the past, at least in physics, got so far because they assumed a primordial order of the universe that can be described using the three classical laws of though (THE logic), and again and again it turned out that they are correct.

I mean, yeah, if 2500 years ago and at the point of coining the term is a "new trend."

[Atla]

Yeah and I happen to think that subscribing to this new trend of only talking about logic in the context of relating concepts within propositions and conclusions in any way we want, is a mistake. I think most of the great thinkers of the past, at least in physics, got so far because they assumed a primordial order of the universe that can be described using the three classical laws of though (THE logic), and again and again it turned out that they are correct.

I mean, yeah, if 2500 years ago and at the point of coining the term is a "new trend."

Oh come on now, for 2500 years most people meant by logic something that makes sense, and almost everyone still does.

[Terrapin Station]

I mean, yeah, if 2500 years ago and at the point of coining the term is a "new trend."

Oh come on now, for 2500 years most people meant by logic something that makes sense, and almost everyone still does.

"Makes sense" is a crass misunderstanding of what the point of logic was. Logic has always been about the implicational relationships of propositions.

[Atla]

Oh come on now, for 2500 years most people meant by logic something that makes sense, and almost everyone still does.

"Makes sense" is a crass misunderstanding of what the point of logic was. Logic has always been about the implicational relationships of propositions.

Logic has two main meanings, you use that one I use this one. Of course I've wondered about this before and concluded that I'll keep using this one.

[chewybrian]

How would you define what logic is?

Logic is a process of proving relationships to be inevitable, such that if a certain proposition is true, then certain conclusions must be taken to be true as a natural and undeniable result.

"Makes sense" is a crass misunderstanding of what the point of logic was. Logic has always been about the implicational relationships of propositions.

Yes, but logic always does make sense, if one understands the beginning proposition and the conclusions that follow and the way in which they are related. Assuming I accept the beginning proposition to be true, and I understand everything you present, and it is really logic, then how could it not make sense? At least, the relationships, the logic itself, should make sense. The fact that reality is what it is doesn't have to make sense, and often doesn't.

[Atla]

Besides propositions and conclusions etc. tend to have an inherently linear structure. So they are incompatible with the probably inherently circular nature of reality. Thinking about logic in only linear terms is a huge problem imo.