31 Jan 08
Originally posted by mtthwLogic is a closed self-referential system. It makes no reference to the universe, so I don't see any reason why it requires the universe to exist.---mthw---
Logic is a closed self-referential system. It makes no reference to the universe, so I don't see any reason why it requires the universe to exist.
Whether it pre-existed the universe is going to depend on whether the concept of "pre-existing the universe" actually makes any sense - if there was no time then it doesn't. It's safer to just say that it's independent of the universe.
Rubbish --! the only reason we have logic is because the universe behaves consistently . Logic is based on probability. The apple falls and we assume it will fall again based on observation , there is no logical reason why it should - there is no logical reason why the laws of gravity won't switch around in the next second. We assume that the universe has some pattern to it via observation. There is no logic - only overwhelming probability based on observation.
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterYet if I had made a backup of the CD the information would not be 'lost'. You are confusing 'storage of information' with 'information'.
I destroy your cd and the information on it is lost , it is therefore not independent. It may be an independent concept but even concepts are not independent of the brain (in the mechanistic world view). If the brain is damaged so is the concept/information. The two are always linked inextricably. Name one instance where a piece of information was not dependent on the physical world in some way.
31 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterSince we seem to be talking about totally different things, please define what you mean by 'logic'. What you are talking about is not logic by the standard usage that I know. In fact even your apparent understanding of it seems to contradict itself.
Rubbish --! the only reason we have logic is because the universe behaves consistently . Logic is based on probability. The apple falls and we assume it will fall again based on observation , there is no logical reason why it should - there is no logical reason why the laws of gravity won't switch around in the next second. We assume that the univers ...[text shortened]... to it via observation. There is no logic - only overwhelming probability based on observation.
I mean how do you reconcile:
Originally posted by knightmeister
1. Logic is based on probability.
2. There is no logic - only overwhelming probability based on observation.
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere are two types of logic/reasoning:
Logic is a closed self-referential system. It makes no reference to the universe, so I don't see any reason why it requires the universe to exist.---mthw---
Rubbish --! the only reason we have logic is because the universe behaves consistently . Logic is based on probability. The apple falls and we assume it will fall again based on observation , t ...[text shortened]... o it via observation. There is no logic - only overwhelming probability based on observation.
1. Inductive - Never has an apple not fallen down, therefore, all apples fall down.
2. Deductive - If x = y and y = 2 then x = 2
For practical purposes, the world would be a very strange(r) place if we didn't use inductive reasoning.
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes , but you are still using another cd to back up on which the info is dependent.
Yet if I had made a backup of the CD the information would not be 'lost'. You are confusing 'storage of information' with 'information'.
Phenomenologically all that actually exists is a plastic round thing burnt by a laser. The "information" is an abstract concept that doesn't exist in a physical way other than grooves and marks.
A lot depends by what you mean by the word "exist" . For example , do you think beauty "exists" ?Or do you think beauty is a subjective concept?
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadthere is no contradiction , logic emanates from the consistency of the universe and probability.
Since we seem to be talking about totally different things, please define what you mean by 'logic'. What you are talking about is not logic by the standard usage that I know. In fact even your apparent understanding of it seems to contradict itself.
I mean how do you reconcile:
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]1. Logic is based on probability.
2. There is no logic - only overwhelming probability based on observation.
[/b]
Take the idea that A cannot be non- A (or B)
(ie the idea that something either is something or it is something else but cannot be both - like a stone is a stone and not a blade of grass- it cannot be both)
This simple idea comes from how the universe behaves. If stones flicked back and forth from being grass and then back to stones again and they did this all the time (and let's say the whole universe behaved in this way) then the idea that A is A and not B might well be challenged.
Such a universe may seem unimaginable because we have only experienced this one but the point is that it is BECAUSE of our experience of this one that such logic (like A is not non A) forms.
31 Jan 08
1 edit
Let me try another example. Theories of geometry were built up (logically) from axioms chosen by Euclid. He chose them because they related to what he observed in the universe.
But then, much later, people realised that you could alter some of these axioms. The result was a completely logical geometrical system - completely logical, even though it didn't (as far as they knew) relate to the universe.
(The fact that later theories of physics happened to find these geometries useful is neither here nor there!)
That's just an example. It's possible to build logical systems that don't describe any observed phenomena. So how can they be dependent on observations?
31 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterIs logic really a closed system ?
Logic is a closed self-referential system. It makes no reference to the universe, so I don't see any reason why it requires the universe to exist.---mthw---
Rubbish --! the only reason we have logic is because the universe behaves consistently . Logic is based on probability. The apple falls and we assume it will fall again based on observation , t o it via observation. There is no logic - only overwhelming probability based on observation.
You cannot prove that logic is indeed logical. There is the leak.
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterKnightmeister, do you have the first clue what logic is? Clearly not. Apparently, the whole of your understanding deals with the nomological and with otherwise employing "logic" in a purely colloquial sense. Geez, do some background reading or something.
Logic is a closed self-referential system. It makes no reference to the universe, so I don't see any reason why it requires the universe to exist.---mthw---
Rubbish --! the only reason we have logic is because the universe behaves consistently . Logic is based on probability. The apple falls and we assume it will fall again based on observation , t ...[text shortened]... o it via observation. There is no logic - only overwhelming probability based on observation.
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterEver hear of a priori?
there is no contradiction , logic emanates from the consistency of the universe and probability.
Take the idea that A cannot be non- A (or B)
(ie the idea that something either is something or it is something else but cannot be both - like a stone is a stone and not a blade of grass- it cannot be both)
This simple idea comes from how the un ...[text shortened]... s that it is BECAUSE of our experience of this one that such logic (like A is not non A) forms.
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by mtthwBut then, much later, people realised that you could alter some of these axioms. The result was a completely logical geometrical system - completely logical, even though it didn't (as far as they knew) relate to the universe.
Let me try another example. Theories of geometry were built up (logically) from axioms chosen by Euclid. He chose them because they related to what he observed in the universe.
But then, much later, people realised that you could alter some of these axioms. The result was a completely logical geometrical system - completely logical, even though it [i]did ...[text shortened]... s that don't describe any observed phenomena. So how can they be dependent on observations?
---mtthw-----
And this is my whole point - don't you see? Start thinking outside the box. One may change the axioms and the rules to create systems that don't correlate to the universe but the fact that one has a system of rules and axioms at all stems from what we observe in the universe (namely systems and axioms)
Think of the universe as a piece of music . We can take the notes and the rhythms and change the music into something that does not correspond to the original piece of music ---BUT----(and here's where you need to think very simply about it) ----it would still be a piece of music , it may have very strange rhythms and notes but it would be based on the original nonetheless because it uses the same system -ie music.
You are actually complicating it. The universe is a logical system so if you create a different logical system (even though it may alter radically just as pieces of music alter radically) its STILL a system nonetheless. The problem with my idea is that it's so obvious and right in front of us that we just don't see it. We take it for granted.
Now stop patronising and start thinking about it. Forget what you think you know and what you have read and think for yourself.
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloCan i refer you to the response I gave mthhw. I don't think you get what I am trying to say. It's probably not complicated enough for you to grasp.
Knightmeister, do you have the first clue what logic is? Clearly not. Apparently, the whole of your understanding deals with the nomological and with otherwise employing "logic" in a purely colloquial sense. Geez, do some background reading or something.
31 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterI have thought about it. I still disagree. I think you have a difficulty with abstraction. I'm comfortable with separating the processes leading to ideas from the ideas themselves.
Now stop patronising and start thinking about it. Forget what you think you know and what you have read and think for yourself.
I'll agree to a certain extent, in that there may be many logical systems, and the systems we have developed are those that correlate with what we observe. But I disagree that this means you can equate the physical universe and logic. Logic is still, however it was originally conceived, independent of the universe.
01 Feb 08
Originally posted by mtthwI agree that in a way logic is partially independent of the universe becasue it can twist the laws of the universe and become a closed system of sorts. BUT....the system itself is modelled on the great system we see around us and derived from the model the universe offers The universe is the original piece of music from which all other pieces are concieved. If the original system was not infact a logical system at all but chaotic , men would not have been able to have conceived logic (infact they probably wouldn't exist). Logic has to be derived form the universe - where else could it come from? Non physical consciousness?
I have thought about it. I still disagree. I think you have a difficulty with abstraction. I'm comfortable with separating the processes leading to ideas from the ideas themselves.
I'll agree to a certain extent, in that there may be many logical systems, and the systems we have developed are those that correlate with what we observe. But I disagree tha ...[text shortened]... and logic. Logic is still, however it was originally conceived, independent of the universe.