# Logic and Reality

paulhanke

Sat 6 Dec, 2008 09:47 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious wrote:
A=A how could it not?

... you can't step into the same river twice (paraphrasing Heraclitus) ... abstract logical statements are, well, abstract - they have no inherent meaning in the real world ... sometimes you can assign real-world meanings to the symbols in a logical statement and it will make sense; as well, there are real-world meanings you can assign to the symbols in a logical statement that result in nonsense ... to the extent that a particular assignment of real-world meanings to the symbols in a logical statement makes sense, logic can help you to understand and make predictions about the relevant subset of the real world ... this should be no surprise, given that logic is a hard-won symbolic generalization of ways in which the real world often behaves ... same thing with mathematics ... 1+1=2 for the most part - a notable exception being the case where you assign the numbers in this abstract mathematical statement the real-world meaning of raindrops!

nameless

Sat 6 Dec, 2008 09:50 pm
@Fido,
Fido;36827 wrote:
Is a naive realism inferior to an eligant unrealism... What do you think?..

I'll leave that response to the person that has lived the philosophy of 'naive realism' and has also the experience of living with other understandings.
My guess is that there were people that poo-pooed the wheel, claiming tradition and comfort of the known tread, until he rode a few miles. Ask him then.
I, personally, don't ever recall believing 'reality' is as it appears to these senses.

Quote:
That because the cave man could not prove his reality that he lived in an unreal world...

I really don't know what you are arguing with here. If you are arguing something that I said, please give the 'offending' quote and state your objection or ask for elucidation. You seem to be meandering and I have no idea where you are and where going.

Quote:
The purpose of kicking the rock was to disprove nothing...

Exactly! The purpose of kicking the rock was to prove the 'material reality' of the rock, to "disprove nothing"!
It was a Plato tale I thought, or perhaps Zeno... nothing new nevertheless. It was a bumpersticker attempt by the clueless to 'prove' materialism.

Didymos Thomas

Sat 6 Dec, 2008 10:05 pm
@Fido,
If dreams exist, how can aspects of dreams like dream-rocks not exist? Wouldn't dream rocks exist, at least in dreams?

Fido

Sun 7 Dec, 2008 09:14 am
@Kielicious,
Kielicious wrote:
ill check it out

I agree things exist just are what they are. A=A that's it, there's nothing more to it than that and thats logical. Also how is logic only "our" way of understanding? what other kind of logic is there?

the irony...

To me logic refuses to go away. As I said before I cannot fathom an illogical reality. A=A how could it not? In an illogical reality A=B? but that cannot be everytime for it would be following some sort of consistency if A only equals B, which is a form of logic. So A would have to equal any and everything infinitely...

How much of reality do you fathom??? Any notion of a percent??? Since it is an infinite, it cannot be said known at all... Yet, we do think we know something of reality, and it is that part we can form judgements about and we can only form a judgement over that which behaves according to rules we think of as logical... It is logical that cats meow.. It is logical that dogs bark... Reality teaches logic...

Fido

Sun 7 Dec, 2008 09:34 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
If dreams exist, how can aspects of dreams like dream-rocks not exist? Wouldn't dream rocks exist, at least in dreams?

Dreams do not exist... We live, a form of existence, and as part of life we percieve in our minds what is real, but the reality is mostly outside of us... It is not the dreams that are real, but ourselves, and our perception and emotions, and senses in regard to them are a part of us, our chemistry, and neurons resetting, or firing... Kicking a dream rock may cause a perception of pain, but our perceptions are not the reality, but the way we begin to understand reality... Our experience of dream as our experience of all reality -seems- real...

Fido

Sun 7 Dec, 2008 09:42 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
I'll leave that response to the person that has lived the philosophy of 'naive realism' and has also the experience of living with other understandings.
My guess is that there were people that poo-pooed the wheel, claiming tradition and comfort of the known tread, until he rode a few miles. Ask him then.
I, personally, don't ever recall believing 'reality' is as it appears to these senses.

I really don't know what you are arguing with here. If you are arguing something that I said, please give the 'offending' quote and state your objection or ask for elucidation. You seem to be meandering and I have no idea where you are and where going.

Exactly! The purpose of kicking the rock was to prove the 'material reality' of the rock, to "disprove nothing"!
It was a Plato tale I thought, or perhaps Zeno... nothing new nevertheless. It was a bumpersticker attempt by the clueless to 'prove' materialism.

Reality is not real because it is provable as real, it is real because we feel it is real by what we call perception.. The cave man had as much reality as the spaceman, but the space man knows a fraction more about it...

nameless

Sun 7 Dec, 2008 02:57 pm
@Fido,
Fido;36885 wrote:
Reality is not real because it is provable as real, it is real because we feel it is real by what we call perception.

Where have you been, dude? I have been saying all over the place that 'reality' is manifested in/as our perception, that we are Conscious Perspectives!
Existence is 'real' 'because' it is (perceived). Existence, as perceived, is our 'reality'. It needs no 'proof'.
Everything exists. Feelings, science, thought, emotions, dreams, hamburglers, etc... are all features of 'reality'/existence.
When speaking of 'reality' from a sciencePerspective, it has it's own unique language (critical thought/experimentation...); like fools and priests and ice-cream men... all are valid features of existence (at the moment of perception).
Even if not the same paragraph, I think that we are on the same page... at least the same book... *__-

Fido

Sun 7 Dec, 2008 06:10 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Where have you been, dude? I have been saying all over the place that 'reality' is manifested in/as our perception, that we are Conscious Perspectives!
Existence is 'real' 'because' it is (perceived). Existence, as perceived, is our 'reality'. It needs no 'proof'.
Everything exists. Feelings, science, thought, emotions, dreams, hamburglers, etc... are all features of 'reality'/existence.
When speaking of 'reality' from a sciencePerspective, it has it's own unique language (critical thought/experimentation...); like fools and priests and ice-cream men... all are valid features of existence (at the moment of perception).
Even if not the same paragraph, I think that we are on the same page... at least the same book... *__-

I have been the same place as many others who realize we cannot touch reality but through our conceptions of it....

Our perceptions tell us only that something is there, and our conceptions define and classify what we see, with the advantage that we can then manipulate our concepts mentally as though the thing itself... peece

Kielicious

Mon 8 Dec, 2008 01:06 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
How much of reality do you fathom??? Any notion of a percent??? Since it is an infinite, it cannot be said known at all... Yet, we do think we know something of reality, and it is that part we can form judgements about and we can only form a judgement over that which behaves according to rules we think of as logical... It is logical that cats meow.. It is logical that dogs bark... Reality teaches logic...

so youre going to play the absolute certainty card.... please try and explain to me how an illogical reality can exist.

Aedes

Mon 8 Dec, 2008 01:11 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;37074 wrote:
please try and explain to me how an illogical reality can exist.
Reality is illogical if we don't understand it. Insofar as this world is complicated and unpredictable, it is only logical inasmuch as we can understand it -- and that's just scratching the surface.

paulhanke

Mon 8 Dec, 2008 01:48 pm
@Aedes,
... to elaborate on Aedes' response, William James illuminated the limitations of logic and mathematics over 100 years ago:

Quote:
The relation of numbers to experience is just like that of 'kinds' in relation to logic. So long as an experience will keep its kind we can handle it by logic. So long as it will keep its number we can deal with it by arithmetic. Sensibly, however, things are constantly changing their numbers, just as they are changing their kinds. They are forever breaking apart and fusing. Compounds and their elements are never numerically identical, for the elements are sensibly many and the compounds sensibly one. Unless our arithmetic (and logic) is to remain without application to life, we must somehow make more numerical (logical) continuity than we spontaneously find.
... he goes on to warn:

Quote:
There is no such thing as 'water' for 'science;' that is only a handy name for H2 and O when they have got into the position H-O-H, and then affect our senses in a novel way. The modern theories of atoms, of heat, and of gases are, in fact, only intensely artificial devices for gaining that constancy in numbers of things which sensible experience will not show. ...

(Only) by such elaborate inventions, and at such a cost to the imagination, do men succeed in making for themselves a world in which real things shall be coerced per fas aut nefas (through right or wrong) under arithmetical law.
... in other words, you can define "reality" to be only those things that you can coerce into fitting logical and mathematical statements ... and by imposing such a definition there is but of course no such thing as an illogical reality ... but at what cost? - how much of the richness of human being and experience is then dismissed as "unreality"?

Didymos Thomas

Mon 8 Dec, 2008 01:50 pm
@Aedes,
Fido wrote:
Dreams do not exist... We live, a form of existence, and as part of life we percieve in our minds what is real, but the reality is mostly outside of us... It is not the dreams that are real, but ourselves, and our perception and emotions, and senses in regard to them are a part of us, our chemistry, and neurons resetting, or firing... Kicking a dream rock may cause a perception of pain, but our perceptions are not the reality, but the way we begin to understand reality... Our experience of dream as our experience of all reality -seems- real...

This doesn't solve the problem.

Again, how can an aspect of something real not be real?

We are real, and dreams are an experience which we, real things, experience, therefore dreams are real experiences. I'm not saying that they exist apart from our existence, quite the opposite. I'm saying that because dreams only exist in our experience that dreams must be, to some degree, real.

Or did I not dream last night?

Icon

Mon 8 Dec, 2008 01:54 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
This doesn't solve the problem.

Again, how can an aspect of something real not be real?

We are real, and dreams are an experience which we, real things, experience, therefore dreams are real experiences. I'm not saying that they exist apart from our existence, quite the opposite. I'm saying that because dreams only exist in our experience that dreams must be, to some degree, real.

Or did I not dream last night?

For some reason, this brings me back to the Descartes Meditations.

Fido

Mon 8 Dec, 2008 02:42 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious wrote:
so youre going to play the absolute certainty card.... please try and explain to me how an illogical reality can exist.

All reality is illogical until we can concieve of it... The helliocentric solar system was not logical because it did not fit with observable facts, like the sun rising and setting... It was math, a form of logic that showed what was obvious to be not logical... We see much that we cannot concieve of, and until we can concieve of it we will not know the logic of it...The logic and the concept goes together...It seems reasonable to expect that we cannot concieve of what is happening in every instance because it is illogical- because it seems illogical, or the logic of it does not fit with what we now consider logical, so if it beyond our logic, and material behavior is not predicted by our logical understanding, then, it is illogical to us.. Nature teaches logic... Reality teaches logic....

Kielicious

Mon 8 Dec, 2008 05:03 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
All reality is illogical until we can concieve of it... The helliocentric solar system was not logical because it did not fit with observable facts, like the sun rising and setting... It was math, a form of logic that showed what was obvious to be not logical... We see much that we cannot concieve of, and until we can concieve of it we will not know the logic of it...The logic and the concept goes together...It seems reasonable to expect that we cannot concieve of what is happening in every instance because it is illogical- because it seems illogical, or the logic of it does not fit with what we now consider logical, so if it beyond our logic, and material behavior is not predicted by our logical understanding, then, it is illogical to us.. Nature teaches logic... Reality teaches logic....

so because we dont fully understand something it is illogical? I hardly find that satisfying. If we dont fully comprehend something that doesnt imply it is illogical. Just by your example of heliocentrism the solar system still existed logically even though we didnt fully understand what was going on. Regardless of what we thought was happening the logic is STILL there. The solar system still followed logic.

Alot of the responses seem to rely wholly on the subjectiveness of the universe and continue to beg the question of absolute certainty. True there may be a chance that everything we know could be wrong but why are we still holding on to such solipsistic statements? While we're at it let's just deny everything, including our minds, and continue to be counter-productive. After all, it seems like that's all that "philosophers" do: question everything and do nothing.

I apologize for the rant but the absolute certainty question is really annoying because its always going in circles to me.

Fido

Mon 8 Dec, 2008 07:23 pm
@Kielicious,
Quote:

Kielicious wrote:
so because we dont fully understand something it is illogical? I hardly find that satisfying. If we dont fully comprehend something that doesnt imply it is illogical. Just by your example of heliocentrism the solar system still existed logically even though we didnt fully understand what was going on. Regardless of what we thought was happening the logic is STILL there. The solar system still followed logic.

I think you are missing my point... Until we understand something is logical we cannot say it is, and we never understand anything until we understand its logic, and it is because the logic of what we do not know does not fit with the logic of what we do know that we do not know it... Part of the weakness of logic is that it does not allow us to predict too much... From our point of view, this moment of time, most of what we see has no reason...
Quote:

Alot of the responses seem to rely wholly on the subjectiveness of the universe and continue to beg the question of absolute certainty. True there may be a chance that everything we know could be wrong but why are we still holding on to such solipsistic statements? While we're at it let's just deny everything, including our minds, and continue to be counter-productive. After all, it seems like that's all that "philosophers" do: question everything and do nothing.

We can never fully understand anything until we understand its logic. Of reality, and of existence, we cannot say we know a fraction of a fraction of what may be out there, nor can we say there is a logic to it, that there might not be some cause with a predictible effect that for some reason quite reasonable may some day NOT have the same effect, which would be illogical, and yet is possible... I agree that we should look for logical understanding of nature, reality and existence; but I think you may see that yesterday's logical explanations only blinded people to the real logic at work... Look at how people used race to explain poverty, illness, and crime... The Germans sterilized 350K of their own people trying to clean up their Genes, and threw a bunch of jews into the ovens like so many baked potatoes for the same reason... It was a false explanation based upon pseudo science... And it was a logical explanation that blined people to their own humanity and the facts...
Quote:
I apologize for the rant but the absolute certainty question is really annoying because its always going in circles to me.

I am not looking for absolute anything... I am looking for a workable explanation with predictable outcomes... Nothing special really... I don't bother trying to draw conclusions about infinites like reality, and instead look for what I can know within reality, objective knowledge about objects in reality, and let the rest go...

BTW; Questioning everything, and doing nothing is what makes knowledge virtue... When you know you don't know you don't get in no big hurry to shove your own foot up your own asssss... Watch everything, do little, have a beer and take a piddle; and no one gets hurt, which is a small but tangible victory...

Kielicious

Mon 8 Dec, 2008 07:43 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
I am looking for a workable explanation with predictable outcomes...

and logic doesnt have a predictable outcome? when has something ever been identified as illogical? To claim otherwise would require some sort of evidence, while to claim logic applies to reality has mounds of evidence...

Fido wrote:
BTW; Questioning everything, and doing nothing is what makes knowledge virtue... When you know you don't know you don't get in no big hurry to shove your own foot up your own asssss...

I agree that we shouldnt jump to conclusions right away. We should always be questioning but if A=A was always true before (for arguments sake) then why not say it always will be true in the after? In your opinion its a big hurry but in mine youre delaying the inevitable, for I would still like someone to show me how an illogical reality can exist. Even in a rudimentary way...

Fido wrote:
Watch everything, do little, have a beer and take a piddle; and no one gets hurt, which is a small but tangible victory...

Again this shows me how "philosophers" truly are. They dont contribute at all except for radical abstract questions that can never be verified. Why not do something and contribute to humanity, the future, science, knowledge, history, et cetera...

paulhanke

Mon 8 Dec, 2008 08:07 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious wrote:
...for I would still like someone to show me how an illogical reality can exist. Even in a rudimentary way...

- is it logical for someone with OCD to compulsively wash their hands until they crack and bleed?
- is it logical for the stock market to swing uncontrollably?
- is it logical for one slip of a rock to come to nothing while the next cascades into a 6.7 earthquake?
- is it logical for us to invade Iraq?
- is this discussion logical?

Kielicious

Mon 8 Dec, 2008 08:15 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
- is it logical for someone with OCD to compulsively wash their hands until they crack and bleed?
- is it logical for the stock market to swing uncontrollably?
- is it logical for one slip of a rock to come to nothing while the next cascades into a 6.7 earthquake?
- is it logical for us to invade Iraq?
- is this discussion logical?

#1: to them yes.
#2: yes. cause and effect
#3: yes. cause and effect
#4: for some, yes.
#5: no.

Aedes

Mon 8 Dec, 2008 08:17 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;37171 wrote:
#1: to them yes.
People do things that they know are self-destructive and that they can't explain. Logic does not govern our behavior.