Logic and Reality

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Kielicious
 
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 08:19 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
People do things that they know are self-destructive and that they can't explain. Logic does not govern our behavior.


ok then, cause and effect.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 08:30 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious wrote:
#2: yes. cause and effect


... whoa :shocked: - if you've discovered a logic that can predict the swings of the stock market, you simply have to let me in on it!!! Wink
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 08:36 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... whoa :shocked: - if you've discovered a logic that can predict the swings of the stock market, you simply have to let me in on it!!! Wink


lol im not sure if there was some seriousness in that post but if so... There are too many variables for the lay-people to fully predict its future outcome. Just like the weather it still follows cause and effect:)
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 09:47 pm
@Kielicious,
... darn!!! - and here I thought I was going to be a fat cat the rest of my life!!! Wink

Anyhoo, if we take the perspective that cause and effect is all that is real in this world, then I cannot disagree with your assertion - in a subatomically deterministic world, all things composed from the subatomic level are also deterministic (at least in principle) ... and if we can map a logic to cause and effect, then all things composed from the subatomic level are also logical (again, at least in principle) ... unfortunately, this perspective is a lot like Lucy - it's got a heck of a lot a'splaining to do! (said in my best Ricky Ricardo imitation) ...

That 'splaining is done at higher levels than subatomic determinism ... it's done at the level of, say, life, markets, and earthquakes - some pretty unpredictable (illogical?) things as far as I'm concerned ... is my experience of unpredictability (illogicity?) due to the fact that I am a boundedly rational agent (as opposed to an omniscient agent)? ... of course it is ... subatomic cause and effect is way beyond my experiential capabilities, let alone my computational capabilities to assemble into, say, a market prediction ... so I instead ground my predictions in phenomena that I can experience using logic that I can compute ... unfortunately, my predictions are frequently off - the stock market crashes; a black swan turns up in Australia; all when I least expect it ... how illogical!!! ... so can it be said that reality is at once logical and illogical? ... that is, can reality be logical at one level of description yet illogical at another? ... (Btw, this is just a variation of Dennett's argument in Freedom Evolves that beings with free will can evolve in a deterministic universe.)
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 10:37 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
People do things that they know are self-destructive and that they can't explain. Logic does not govern our behavior.

Poor choice of words... Logic, that is reason, does govern our behavior; but it does not rule our behavior...Emotions see the goal, and reason finds the path.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 02:43 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... darn!!! - and here I thought I was going to be a fat cat the rest of my life!!! Wink

Anyhoo, if we take the perspective that cause and effect is all that is real in this world, then I cannot disagree with your assertion - in a subatomically deterministic world, all things composed from the subatomic level are also deterministic (at least in principle) ... and if we can map a logic to cause and effect, then all things composed from the subatomic level are also logical (again, at least in principle) ... unfortunately, this perspective is a lot like Lucy - it's got a heck of a lot a'splaining to do! (said in my best Ricky Ricardo imitation) ...

That 'splaining is done at higher levels than subatomic determinism ... it's done at the level of, say, life, markets, and earthquakes - some pretty unpredictable (illogical?) things as far as I'm concerned ... is my experience of unpredictability (illogicity?) due to the fact that I am a boundedly rational agent (as opposed to an omniscient agent)? ... of course it is ... subatomic cause and effect is way beyond my experiential capabilities, let alone my computational capabilities to assemble into, say, a market prediction ... so I instead ground my predictions in phenomena that I can experience using logic that I can compute ... unfortunately, my predictions are frequently off - the stock market crashes; a black swan turns up in Australia; all when I least expect it ... how illogical!!! ... so can it be said that reality is at once logical and illogical? ... that is, can reality be logical at one level of description yet illogical at another? ... (Btw, this is just a variation of Dennett's argument in Freedom Evolves that beings with free will can evolve in a deterministic universe.)


I've never laughed soo hard at a post. That Lucy bit was pure gold!
I must say that the issue of free will is entitled to a thread in an of itself...
I may post more later when I am done laughing
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 08:43 am
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;37174 wrote:
ok then, cause and effect.
Cause and effect isn't logical -- it's temporal or associative, but the assumption of cause and effect is often wrong. They used to think that witches were the cause of bad harvests, and they used to think that foul miasmas caused malaria, but neither of those proved true. What seemed logical at the time was actually NOT a cause and effect, and now to call them as such would be illogical. So there's no inherent logic in the assignment of cause and effect just because we can.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 11:17 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
So there's no inherent logic in the assignment of cause and effect just because we can.


... and that highlights a point that I failed to make ... using math and logic to make predictions about the structure of the world is theoretical physics - until such time as those predictions are either corroborated or refuted by experimental physics, they are considered speculative ... that is, the isomorphism of various maths and logics to the real world can never be taken for granted simply because they happen to be isomorphic at some other level ... so to refine a statement I made above:

"... if we can map a logic to cause and effect, then all things composed from the subatomic level are also logical (at least in theory) ..."
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 11:18 am
@Kielicious,
Kielicious wrote:
I've never laughed soo hard at a post. That Lucy bit was pure gold!


... we aim to please Smile
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 12:29 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... and that highlights a point that I failed to make ... using math and logic to make predictions about the structure of the world is theoretical physics - until such time as those predictions are either corroborated or refuted by experimental physics, they are considered speculative ... that is, the isomorphism of various maths and logics to the real world can never be taken for granted simply because they happen to be isomorphic at some other level ... so to refine a statement I made above:

"... if we can map a logic to cause and effect, then all things composed from the subatomic level are also logical (at least in theory) ..."

I thought cause and effect were insight, and proving them true takes logic, which is more of a process to determine true cause and true effect...
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 01:24 pm
@Fido,
Fido;37291 wrote:
I thought cause and effect were insight, and proving them true takes logic, which is more of a process to determine true cause and true effect...
Proving them true takes evidence. Logic helps determine how we can prove them true.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 01:42 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Proving them true takes evidence. Logic helps determine how we can prove them true.


... as well, you can just assume them to be true - that is, axioms in a logic of cause and effect ... such is the foundation of a lot of science and engineering - scary, no? Wink
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 01:46 pm
@Kielicious,
I'm not so sure about such axioms existing in science.

If science has any major flaw, it's the assumption of methodological soundness of past findings.
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 02:35 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
I'm not so sure about such axioms existing in science.


... that's a fair statement ... the axioms of a science are typically the result of decades of experimentation ... only an engineer would ever dream of whipping out an axiom (aka "engineering assumption") at the drop of a hat Wink ...
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 04:38 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... that's a fair statement ... the axioms of a science are typically the result of decades of experimentation ... only an engineer would ever dream of whipping out an axiom (aka "engineering assumption") at the drop of a hat Wink ...

The Axiom of A is A is called conservation in physics and science... All identities are conserved, lines stay lines no matter how long or short, mass or motion is conserved, except if you ask Einstein... I think they whip them out all the time... There are books and rules of thumb that have been computerized by now for design that take into account use, weather, live load, foundation soil, and location... In New Orleons, you might have to build for flood or hurricane winds... In Los Angeles, you might have to build for acceleration, which is the main force in earth quakes that must be resisted... Strange to build a big structure with the thought it may have to go some where some day...Why not just put it where you want it, like, in another state???
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 08:23 pm
@Fido,
Fido;37324 wrote:
The Axiom of A is A is called conservation in physics and science... All identities are conserved, lines stay lines no matter how long or short, mass or motion is conserved
Oh come on. The assertion that A is A is contingent solely upon the linguistic meaning of the verb to be. It doesn't matter what A is so long as A is repeated on the opposite side of the is.

Conservation of mass or of energy (for instance) in science may be used axiomatically, but that is because it's abstracted out of bread and butter empirical science. I mean we derived PV = nRT (the ideal gas equation) in my physical chemistry course in college. The variables in this case DO matter, because the statements denote relationships of variables, not tautologic statements of basic linguistics.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 10:13 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Oh come on. The assertion that A is A is contingent solely upon the linguistic meaning of the verb to be. It doesn't matter what A is so long as A is repeated on the opposite side of the is.


Exactly, A=A, to me, always has and always will be true. Think about it, if A=/=A then what does it equal? If reality was illogical then A would equal any and everything possible. Which, obviously, doesnt make sense.

I just wonder why you're trying soo hard to say A=A isnt true. Do you really believe that? I understand that absolute certainty scares people (especially philosophers for some reason) but seriously, when has something ever been identified as illogical? Never. Never has and never will.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 10:19 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Oh come on. The assertion that A is A is contingent solely upon the linguistic meaning of the verb to be. It doesn't matter what A is so long as A is repeated on the opposite side of the is.

Conservation of mass or of energy (for instance) in science may be used axiomatically, but that is because it's abstracted out of bread and butter empirical science. I mean we derived PV = nRT (the ideal gas equation) in my physical chemistry course in college. The variables in this case DO matter, because the statements denote relationships of variables, not tautologic statements of basic linguistics.

I am just giving you the facts ma'am... Identity is the same as conservation, and that is its meaning, and has nothing to do with being, which is another axiom, but with the stability through time and place of concepts... All concepts are identities, but some complex principals are treated in the same fashion... Clearly, the notion of conservation of mass does not hold up against Einstein's physics, and yet it does generally hold true...
Think of A as a concept, like a line... If have a line and you subtract an inch and then add a mile; what have you??? A line... If we talk about justice, and agree that we have such a thing as justice, no matter how justice is abused, whether this one has enough, or that one has too little, still justice is justice, what ever it is... The concept is unaffected by the operations done with it, which affects the example and never the concept under discussion, and the exception is when A can be proved to be B, or justice, injustice, and etc... Because when we can use our concepts to reach true conclusions the concepts, as identities, tend to seem proved. And they are not proved because they cannot be, but can be disproved...
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 10:26 pm
@Fido,
Kielicious;37347 wrote:
If reality was illogical then A would equal any and everything possible.
This has nothing to do with reality. It has only to do with the cognitive concept contained in the verb to be.

Fido;37349 wrote:
I am just giving you the facts ma'am...
?

Quote:
Identity is the same as conservation, and that is its meaning, and has nothing to do with being, which is another axiom, but with the stability through time and place of concepts...
You're confusing a linguistic concept with a physical concept simply because they share some words in common. Look beyond the words.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 10:27 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious wrote:
Exactly, A=A, to me, always has and always will be true. Think about it, if A=/=A then what does it equal? If reality was illogical then A would equal any and everything possible. Which, obviously, doesnt make sense.

I just wonder why you're trying soo hard to say A=A isnt true. Do you really believe that? I understand that absolute certainty scares people (especially philosophers for some reason) but seriously, when has something ever been identified as illogical? Never. Never has and never will.

The axiom is expressed as A is A . But A stands for any concept... All concepts are conserved... A does not equal A... The conceptual dog does not equal the real dog... The conceptual dog IS the dog we know as real, so that if we talk about this dog or that dog, or the dog we will get when we cross these dogs -is still a dog, so you understand that reality changes, but the concepts do not change because if they did change, and did not hold their meaning, then they would be useless, and thought would be pointless, because it would never get beyond the first predicate...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 02:45:47