Logic and Reality

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fido
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 10:34 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
This has nothing to do with reality. It has only to do with the cognitive concept contained in the verb to be.

?

You're confusing a linguistic concept with a physical concept simply because they share some words in common. Look beyond the words.

Concepts are concepts... A is A, and I am not confusing beans.. If you look at words, say, black man, white man; is there some distinction to keep either from consideration as men??? Civil rights, property rights, if the distinction be real, should not be considered as other than rights... Concepts of this sort or that sort are equally concepts... Reality is different, but we concieve of physical reality and moral reality by the same method, by forms...

Regardless of how it is phrased, identity has nothing to do, by itself with being, because being is assumed everywhere... Look at Plato, or really any ancient philsophers and the question never comes up... From the beginning people have focused, on the stars, on matter, on movement, on morals, on God; but what we have is fraction of a fraction on existence, the soul and that rot... People do not need proof of what is obvious, and logic has always been born out of utility... If people cannot agree to the first part of any logical discussion, which is, that terms will not suddenly sprout new meanings, then no one can progress... A as A is only about forms...
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:37 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
... 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???


.... :bigsmile: ....
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 01:39 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
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...


Semantics. Thats what I meant but expressed it differently.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 02:16 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
This has nothing to do with reality. It has only to do with the cognitive concept contained in the verb to be.


It has everything to do with reality. When has something ever been illogical? or for that matter, what does A equal if its an illogical reality?

I think you're looking for something that isnt there...
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 05:28 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious wrote:
It has everything to do with reality. When has something ever been illogical? or for that matter, what does A equal if its an illogical reality?

I think you're looking for something that isnt there...

Something is always logical, and nothing always wins the argument... How do you explain that???
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 05:43 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
Something is always logical, and nothing always wins the argument... How do you explain that???



Magic!!!!!!!!!! Wink
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 06:33 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious wrote:
When has something ever been illogical?


... sounds like a question for Godel ... he proved (much to the dismay of the mathematical world) that any system of axioms is incomplete - that there are statements within each system that are true but which cannot be deduced from the system's axioms ... thus, when you map any logic to the real world, there will be real-world truths that remain logically undeducible - that are not logical* ...

(* at least in principle Wink)
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 06:35 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious wrote:
Magic!!!!!!!!!! Wink


... now that's my kind of reality! :a-ok:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 06:41 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... sounds like a question for Godel ... he proved (much to the dismay of the mathematical world) that any system of axioms is incomplete - that there are statements within each system that are true but which cannot be deduced from the system's axioms ... thus, when you map any logic to the real world, there will be real-world truths that remain logically undeducible - that are not logical* ...

(* at least in principle Wink)


Undeducible from what?
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 07:00 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Undeducible from what?


... from whatever axioms you've chosen to form the foundation of your logical system ...
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 08:53 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... sounds like a question for Godel ... he proved (much to the dismay of the mathematical world) that any system of axioms is incomplete - that there are statements within each system that are true but which cannot be deduced from the system's axioms ... thus, when you map any logic to the real world, there will be real-world truths that remain logically undeducible - that are not logical* ...

(* at least in principle Wink)

What does that tell you??? To me, it seems no one goes logically to any party with only one axiom... In fact we take a lot for granted because it is obvious... Like life, or existence... It is axiomatic whether it is expressed or not...
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Wed 10 Dec, 2008 09:12 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
To me, it seems no one goes logically to any party with only one axiom...


... or even just one logical system, for that matter? ... e.g., the system of axioms for billiard balls (1+1=2) is different than the system of axioms for raindrops (1+1=1) ... but is the idea of a pluralism of logical systems, um, logical? Wink

EDIT: since I've gone and invoked the "p" word ... Scientific pluralism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 07:07 am
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... or even just one logical system, for that matter? ... e.g., the system of axioms for billiard balls (1+1=2) is different than the system of axioms for raindrops (1+1=1) ... but is the idea of a pluralism of logical systems, um, logical? Wink

EDIT: since I've gone and invoked the "p" word ... Scientific pluralism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Numbers have their own logic... We count individual people as one, and few people would agree they are equal, so obviously one is not one in reality...
 
rhinogrey
 
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 12:52 pm
@Kielicious,
Well, one is not always one, but it can be.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 01:40 pm
@rhinogrey,
rhinogrey wrote:
Well, one is not always one, but it can be.

I would say the reverse, that one may be more than one but must be one..
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2008 04:17 pm
@Kielicious,
With regard to the original question, I would ask Kielicious, what would be the difference between a logical and illogical universe? You would have to know this to determine if the universe is logical or illogical.

My basic answer to this question is that that everything is illogical, though we use the word logic to represent the most internally coherent of our interpretations. In other words, the terms have no absolute meaning. Asking whether the world is either logical or illogical is like asking whether the world is either red or blue, having already made the arbitrary assumption that everything is either red or blue.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2008 05:21 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon wrote:
With regard to the original question, I would ask Kielicious, what would be the difference between a logical and illogical universe? You would have to know this to determine if the universe is logical or illogical.

My basic answer to this question is that that everything is illogical, though we use the word logic to represent the most internally coherent of our interpretations. In other words, the terms have no absolute meaning. Asking whether the world is either logical or illogical is like asking whether the world is either red or blue, having already made the arbitrary assumption that everything is either red or blue.



BrightNoon: you say everything is illogical, so name me one thing that has been identified as illogical.

You cant. The realilty we live in follows logic regardless if we understand it or not. Otherwise, as we have seen before, we are attributing human error to the equation.

We have to move on and find some common ground. The scientific community has, so now its the philosophers' turn. Agree to move forward; not doubt and continue to simmer.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2008 06:38 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;38307 wrote:
The realilty we live in follows logic regardless if we understand it or not.
If there were no human brains in the universe, there would be neither logic nor illogic -- it would just be what it is. Logic and illogic are both judgements made by a human mind (based on some sort of understanding of the terms) -- but you cannot in any credible way prove that they are intrinsic aspects of reality.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2008 08:49 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
If there were no human brains in the universe, there would be neither logic nor illogic -- it would just be what it is. Logic and illogic are both judgements made by a human mind (based on some sort of understanding of the terms) -- but you cannot in any credible way prove that they are intrinsic aspects of reality.


I already stated this type of reasoning before... logic is not solely a human attribute, it just is, period.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2008 08:52 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon wrote:
With regard to the original question, I would ask Kielicious, what would be the difference between a logical and illogical universe? You would have to know this to determine if the universe is logical or illogical.

My basic answer to this question is that that everything is illogical, though we use the word logic to represent the most internally coherent of our interpretations. In other words, the terms have no absolute meaning. Asking whether the world is either logical or illogical is like asking whether the world is either red or blue, having already made the arbitrary assumption that everything is either red or blue.

The in-fin-ite cannot be de-fin-ed; either as logical or colored.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 03:12:32