Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[RJG]

An “infinite” universe, although it may seem unpalatable to many of us, is the ONLY logical solution. If the universe exists then logically it is infinite. There is no other logical explanation.

"It is correct that potential infinity requires a beginning, as it assumes that the sequence or set starts at a certain point[1]."

"Assuming" that infinity must have a beginning doesn't make it so. There is no logical argument that refutes a "beginning-less infinity". If you believe I'm wrong, then please present your logical refutation.

Note: feelings don't count. Just because a "beginning-less infinity" seems impossible doesn't make it so.

[value]

Beginning-less infinity isn't the same as mathematical potential infinity. When it concerns empirical representations such as physical objects in the cosmos then a mathematical potential infinity cannot apply without the context of time because it is merely endless and depends on an empirical representation to provide in the required begin for mathematics to be applicable.

Further, the idea that beginning-less infinity can be applicable to empirical representations of physical objects (e.g. 'infinite number of ...') is invalid.

ChatGPT had the following to say about it:

"The conception of an empirical representation always introduces a beginning or a starting point. Therefore, it would be impossible for a beginning-less infinity to apply because such an idea could at most be a mathematical potential infinity. As established earlier, mathematical potential infinity cannot be applicable to empirical representations of physical objects without the context of time because potential infinity requires a beginning or a starting point, which is a hard and inescapable requirement. The notion of potential infinity requires a non-terminating process that produces a sequence with no last element, where each individual result is finite and is achieved in a finite number of steps. Therefore, it is impossible to conceive of an empirical representation of an object that is potentially infinite without the context of time."

There is a discussion ongoing about the difference between potential and actual infinity by a philosopher and a professor dedicated to the subject.

Endless and infinite
viewtopic.php?p=439147#p439147

[RJG]

"The conception of an empirical representation always introduces a beginning or a starting point. Therefore, it would be impossible for a beginning-less infinity to apply because such an idea could at most be a mathematical potential infinity.

An "infinity with a beginning point" is an obvious logical impossibility. By definition, infinity is "beginning-less". Any conception of infinity that includes a beginning point needs to be automatically discarded.

There is nothing more objectively certain, in all of reality, than that of a logical impossibility."

Although the empirical representation of true infinity may be difficult to conceive, this does not, in any way, make a logical impossibility a possibility. The inability or difficulty in grasping the conception of true infinity does not trump a logical impossibility.

Logically, if our universe is not infinite, then it can't exist. So if you wish to continue arguing that true infinity doesn't exist, then you are also arguing that you don't exist.

[Pattern-chaser]

Logically, if our universe is not infinite, then it can't exist.

You keep saying this, but I see no reason why it should be so. I see no justification for this position. I assume you have one, so, what is it, please?

[I also assume that when you say "logically", you refer to the application of reason, as well as logically-formed arguments.]

[value]

Logically, if our universe is not infinite, then it can't exist. So if you wish to continue arguing that true infinity doesn't exist, then you are also arguing that you don't exist.

My argument is that the fallacy of logic (and the idea of infinity to be applicable to empirical representations of objects, e.g. 'infinite number of ...') is to exclude the conscious observer from consideration.

Simple logic makes it evident that it is the conscious observer as fundamental manifester of a subjective perspective that introduces the fundamental potential of a begin by which mathematics and logic are possible. It is therefore the conscious observer that is the fundamental origin of potential infinity.

Therefore both supposed 'only logical options' to explain the cosmos are equally absurd in my opinion. It would not be justified to select option 1 because option 2 is absurd.

1. the universe magically always existed
2. the universe magically sprung into existence from nothing

At question would be how a 'logical option' (magically always existed or magically have sprung into existence) is possible in the first place. It is then seen that for any option to be possible an aspect is required that is not of a nature that allows a choice. That aspect is related to the conscious observer.

[RJG]

I also assume that when you say "logically", you refer to the application of reason, as well as logically-formed arguments.

Yes, absolutely. When I say "logically", I mean the logic (reasoning) is "sound"; it meets the criteria of sound logic.

Logically, if our universe is not infinite, then it can't exist.

You keep saying this, but I see no reason why it should be so. I see no justification for this position. I assume you have one, so, what is it, please?

Thanks for asking. Yes, it is logically impossible for there to be a "beginning" of the universe, as this would imply that time existed before it existed, which is a logical impossibility [X<X].

P1. If the universe did not exist, then time could not exist.
P2. If time did not exist, then "beginnings" are not possible.
C1. Therefore, if the universe did not exist, then it could not "begin" to exist.
P3. The universe exists.
C2. Therefore, the universe is "beginning-less" (infinite).

Note that the structure of the above syllogism is mathematically (logically) valid, and the premises (P1, P2, & P3) are true, resulting in "sound" logical conclusions (C1 & C2); i.e. logical truths.



******

Therefore both supposed 'only logical options' to explain the cosmos are equally absurd in my opinion. It would not be justified to select option 1 because option 2 is absurd.

1. the universe magically always existed
2. the universe magically sprung into existence from nothing

Firstly, with option 1, there is nothing "magical" (or absurd, or impossible) about an always existing (infinite) universe. It only seems that way to you because you are not looking at it from a logical perspective. An "infinite" universe does not defy logic whatsoever.

Secondly, with option 2, I agree this is logically impossible (aka "magical").

[value]

Therefore both supposed 'only logical options' to explain the cosmos are equally absurd in my opinion. It would not be justified to select option 1 because option 2 is absurd.

1. the universe magically always existed
2. the universe magically sprung into existence from nothing

Firstly, with option 1, there is nothing "magical" (or absurd, or impossible) about an always existing (infinite) universe. It only seems that way to you because you are not looking at it from a logical perspective. An "infinite" universe does not defy logic whatsoever.

Secondly, with option 2, I agree this is logically impossible (aka "magical").

You are correct that I do not view it from within a logical perspective because the potential of logic itself requires an explanation and therefore logic by itself cannot logically be a ground to explain the universe.

The error in my opinion is the consideration that mathematical potential infinity can be independently applicable to empirical representations of objects (e.g. 'infinite amount of...').

Mathematics and logic are dependent on a begin and one is obligated to explain the potential that begin.

Philosophical reason can step outside the boundaries of logic and for example declare 'logic is it's own fallacy'. Logic and philosophical reason may seem similar but reason has purpose (meaning) contained within itself. Reason can be used to address the why question of the universe while pure logic by itself cannot do that.

[RJG]

Philosophical reason can step outside the boundaries of logic and for example declare 'logic is it's own fallacy'. Logic and philosophical reason may seem similar but reason has purpose (meaning) contained within itself. Reason can be used to address the why question of the universe while pure logic by itself cannot do that.

Value, you fail to realize 1) that sound reasoning is not possible without logic, and 2) it is logically impossible to rationally invalidate logic.

Any non-logical reasoning that you use to try to invalidate logic, invalidates nothing. And any 'logical' reasoning that you might use, will only invalidate your reasoning, as you cut off the very legs upon which you make your stand!

[Pattern-chaser]

Logic is not just one thing. There are many logics. All of them have some similarity to one another, but all are different, crafted for different purposes.

There is Boolean logic, most useful to digital hardware designers and the like.
There are formal logics, some of them featuring all those hieroglyphics.
There is the logic that validates the form of arguments, which is likely what we are discussing here.
There is informal, everyday, 'logic', which is actually 'reason'.
And so on...

All of them are useful in some way, to someone.

[RJG]

Logic is not just one thing. There are many logics. All of them have some similarity to one another, but all are different, crafted for different purposes.

There is Boolean logic, most useful to digital hardware designers and the like.
There are formal logics, some of them featuring all those hieroglyphics.
There is the logic that validates the form of arguments, which is likely what we are discussing here.

Yes, if we wish to "make sense" in our discussions here, then we need "logic" (sound logic), which is necessary to arrive at truths (logical truths; objective truths). If we are interested in "truth finding", then logic is the ONLY game in town.

There is informal, everyday, 'logic', which is actually 'reason'.

Not quite. Reason without logic is "BAD reasoning" (aka "non-sense-making"). Though, I suppose, to your point, that "bad logic" is still logic, right? Okay, so I should clarify. When I say "logic", I am referring to "sound logic" (not "bad logic").

[Pattern-chaser]

There is informal, everyday, 'logic', which is actually 'reason'.

Not quite. Reason without logic is "BAD reasoning" (aka "non-sense-making"). Though, I suppose, to your point, that "bad logic" is still logic, right? Okay, so I should clarify. When I say "logic", I am referring to "sound logic" (not "bad logic").

No-one mentioned reason without logic, or logic without reason. These two associated concepts come together when we are assessing arguments presented to us, but they are quite different. Logic tells us if the structure or form of an argument is valid; reason tells us if that argument has been employed correctly — e.g. are the inserted premises factually correct? — and thereby if the conclusion reached is correct.

[RJG]

Logic tells us if the structure or form of an argument is valid; reason tells us if that argument has been employed correctly — e.g. are the inserted premises factually correct? — and thereby if the conclusion reached is correct.

This part is not correct. Actually, it is ‘logic’ (not reason) that demands 1) a valid structure and 2) true premises.

‘Reason’ does not have to be ‘logical’ at all. - Reasons can be any irrational belief, it doesn’t have to be true. Reasoning can simply be an appeal to desire; fear; authority; etc., etc.

Example 1 -- The reason I like chocolate ice cream is because it tastes good. -- This reasoning has no logical basis; it is just an “appeal-to-desire”.

Example 2 -- The reason we should also mask and social distance our healthy population is because if not, then covid will kill more people. -- This reasoning has no logical basis; it is just an “appeal-to-fear” (fear-mongering).

Example 3 -– The reason we should obey Example 2 (above) is because Dr. Fauci says so! -- This reasoning has no logical basis; it is just an “appeal-to-authority”.

We get truths from ‘logic’, not necessarily from ‘reasons’.

[value]

There is informal, everyday, 'logic', which is actually 'reason'.

Not quite. Reason without logic is "BAD reasoning" (aka "non-sense-making"). Though, I suppose, to your point, that "bad logic" is still logic, right? Okay, so I should clarify. When I say "logic", I am referring to "sound logic" (not "bad logic").

No-one mentioned reason without logic, or logic without reason. These two associated concepts come together when we are assessing arguments presented to us, but they are quite different. Logic tells us if the structure or form of an argument is valid; reason tells us if that argument has been employed correctly — e.g. are the inserted premises factually correct? — and thereby if the conclusion reached is correct.

Not all things need to be logical. When one produces art the creative process might often appear illogical and of art or beauty as a product it might be argued that it is reasonable but not logical.

Is Art beyond logic?
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... yond-logic

Reason and logic are not the same. It cannot be said in my opinion that everyday logic is reason despite that 'everyday' might denote a humane and social ground for the indicated logic and in that case logic would merely be a tool for that humane ground and that ground itself would be reason (the source of purpose and meaning to pursue or apply logic).

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that one seeks and perhaps even demands consistency within a context (cosmic world) of 'meaningful relations' and that logic is a technical tool that humans have established for that purpose.

Logic cannot be the fundamental ground of logic. The fundamental ground of logic is philosophical reason.

While it might be possible to argue that the pursuit of consistency is ethical or even vital it would be incorrect to say that that consistency is the origin of the pursuit of consistency because if that were to be so why would consistency need to be sought in the first place?

In order to have a discussion of any sort - the search for consistency and valid logic - one needs the potential to create value and that potential cannot originate from value itself.

[Pattern-chaser]

Not all things need to be logical. When one produces art the creative process might often appear illogical and of art or beauty as a product it might be argued that it is reasonable but not logical.

Ah, a breath of fresh air! Yes, agreed.

[Pattern-chaser]

Logic tells us if the structure or form of an argument is valid; reason tells us if that argument has been employed correctly — e.g. are the inserted premises factually correct? — and thereby if the conclusion reached is correct.

This part is not correct. Actually, it is ‘logic’ (not reason) that demands 1) a valid structure and 2) true premises.

‘Reason’ does not have to be ‘logical’ at all. - Reasons can be any irrational belief, it doesn’t have to be true. Reasoning can simply be an appeal to desire; fear; authority; etc., etc.

Example 1 -- The reason I like chocolate ice cream is because it tastes good. -- This reasoning has no logical basis; it is just an “appeal-to-desire”.

Example 2 -- The reason we should also mask and social distance our healthy population is because if not, then covid will kill more people. -- This reasoning has no logical basis; it is just an “appeal-to-fear” (fear-mongering).

Example 3 -– The reason we should obey Example 2 (above) is because Dr. Fauci says so! -- This reasoning has no logical basis; it is just an “appeal-to-authority”.

We get truths from ‘logic’, not necessarily from ‘reasons’.

I will follow your yellow brick road, for a short time.

You don't need me to tell you that "reason" can be used in several ways, with several meanings.

Reason
noun
— a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reasons for declaring war.
— a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action: I dare you to give me one good reason for quitting school!

verb (used without object)
— to think or argue in a logical manner.
— to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.

verb (used with object)
— to think through logically, as a problem (often followed by out).
— to conclude or infer.

I have referred to the verb-based meanings, and you have referred, in your 'refutation', to noun-based meanings, presumably to confuse matters. When we talk of logic and reason, we don't mean "why we like chocolate ice cream", we mean the ability to "think or argue in a logical manner".