Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I'm saying is that there are logical laws. These things are always true. These are conceptual in nature. They cannot be explained without a mind that conceived of them.
For example, 3 of them:
Law of Identity
Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car.
Law of Non-Contradiction
Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.
Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)
A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
"I am alive" is either true or false. "You are pregnant" is either true or false.
Note one: "This statement is false" is not a valid statement (not logically true) since it is self-refuting and is dealt with by the Law of Non-contradiction. Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category since it is a self-contradiction.
This was my point above. These axioms do not have to be assumed to be true. For example trinary or other forms of multi-valued logic alter the law of excluded middle allowing more than two states. Other types of logic that do not assume others of these axioms, such as modal logic or intuitionistic logic.
Within Classical logic these things are assumed to be true, but cannot be proven to be so. They are simply necessary assumptions inherent in that particular form of logic.
-NoCapo
10-22-2013, 06:36 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Laws of logic are not true or false, they are axioms. That means they are assumed to be true without any possible method of a proof. There are a vast number of systems of logic, and not all of them use the three fundamental axioms of Classical logic (Indentity, Non-contradiction, and Excluded middle).
In fact these laws are simply enabling assumptions that the practitioner of logic makes in order to use the chosen logical framework. They are entirely dependent on the mind doing the thinking.
Another great example is that by definition, parallel lines never meet. A fundamental truth of the world right? Except it is only true for Euclidean geometry. If you use one of any number of non-Euclidean formulations it is no longer true. All of these things, logic, mathematics, geometry, are descriptive tools that are based on axioms which are fundamentally assumptions. They attempt to describe reality as we percieve or model it, but they are labels and descriptions which we attach to reality, and not reality itself.
I think up a ton of illogical occurrences before I wake up in the morning. Almost every dream of mine violates the law of identity at some point. The law of identity not being true is highly conceivable to me, for example in a supernatural and superlogical world, where a rock is not a rock but actually a divine incarnation, both fully rock and fully non-rock.
Still, what could be responsible for the "law of logic" ...Nature, just like Nature is responsible for God. According to Christians, God's Nature is what allows God to not need a cause (other than himself perhaps). Perhaps its the nature of logic and the universe that allows it not to have a "sustaining mind/Vishnu."
I think by God, you mean "universal mind"... you must think that in order for a rock to be a rock, it must be controlled by a sustaining mind. Yet a rock doesn't necessarily need a sustaining mind to be a rock, the "law of identity" is just a label for an observed and conceptualized phenomenon (that a thing is consistently itself).
The law of identity needs a sustaining mind as much as a sustaining mind does need one to explain its own, so such an idea for the cause of things would lead to an infinite regress, infinite regresses are illogical and so if you define God as infinite you define God as illogical and therefore there would be no need for a "sustaining mind" in the first place being as the illogic/superlogical nature of the Ultimate Cause/Substance makes it a free-for-all allowing a rock to be a rock without any further reason, other than its illogical nature.
The laws of logic can uphold themselves in illogical universes (such as those created by supernatural/superlogical natures.)
And aside from that, Nature satisfies as the cause consistency (and by extension the possible logical parameters of existence).
No....nature is not responsible. The laws of logic are not dependent upon nature...as they would cease to exist if the universe ceased to exist.
This was my point above. These axioms do not have to be assumed to be true. For example trinary or other forms of multi-valued logic alter the law of excluded middle allowing more than two states. Other types of logic that do not assume others of these axioms, such as modal logic or intuitionistic logic.
Within Classical logic these things are assumed to be true, but cannot be proven to be so. They are simply necessary assumptions inherent in that particular form of logic.
-NoCapo
Unicorns and pixies exist in your world, right? I mean if you can just decide to live by a different method of logic...
No. I'm saying that whether human beings exist or not, there will be certain logical absolutes. How do we account for the LAW -- or the intellectual concept? How did that happen without a mind to conceive it?
The mind can design rules.
I'm not sure if laws of physics can be built, so I get where you're coming from with your idea of a mind having dreamed it up. The mind is the only way I know of to build rules, which it does through thought.
Intelligence, so far, seems to stem from biological processes and brain cells. I see no reason to assume it comes from anywhere else. Until it's found elsewhere, I see no reason to assume your god who built the laws of physics from its mind exists. (There are other bugs with this idea too. This is the only one I feel like thinking about enough to point out right now though.)
Interesting idea though. I hadn't thought of that before.
I'm not sure if laws of physics can be built, so I get where you're coming from with your idea of a mind having dreamed it up. The mind is the only way I know of to build rules, which it does through thought.
Intelligence, so far, seems to stem from biological processes and brain cells. I see no reason to assume it comes from anywhere else. Until it's found elsewhere, I see no reason to assume your god who built the laws of physics from its mind exists. (There are other bugs with this idea too. This is the only one I feel like thinking about enough to point out right now though.)
Interesting idea though. I hadn't thought of that before.
The law of identity is true whether or not human beings exist.
10-22-2013, 08:25 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
1 + 1 = 2 is a great example. It's an absolute.
There are other laws of logic, such as the law of identity -- Something is what it is...and is not what it isn't. That's maybe oversimplified...but it is a logical absolute.
Those logical laws are not dependent upon time or space. I'd love to see how someone that does not believe in God accounts for such absolutes.
Sure they are! What are you describing using the law of identity when you say a rock is a rock and not a cat? Identity has to do with ontology - the very nature or property of something. This 'law' is actually one way how we discuss those things in a coherent manner given the axiomatic or a priori definitions assigned to such things or concepts (and concepts don't exist without minds and minds don't exist without brains and brains don't exist without matter/energy and that does not exist without space and time). It is a way to speak coherently about such defined entities observed by the definers. It is through the definition that a things essence (identity) is established whereby one can now proceed to talk in a coherent manner about such things -things that exist in our minds or apart from them.
All you need is existence, an observer, and agreement upon the observation for there to be a law of identity. No need for a god.
Unicorns and pixies exist in your world, right? I mean if you can just decide to live by a different method of logic...
You are the one that give credence to imaginary beings, not I...
But seriously, there are a host of different systems of logic. It is a tool to use to make sense of the universe, not a set of rules the universe must obey. Classical logic works well in many cases to describe the way things seem to "work", but for certain applications, under certain conditions, other systems of logic are more appropriate. The simplest example I can give you is trinary logic, which is used quite a bit in electronics. Instead of a binary true or false, a system can return three values, true, false or don't care (often represented with a high impedence state). If you extend it further, you can use fuzzy logic, which has an infinite number(theoretically anyway) of values, becasue any number between 0 and one is a valid truth value. So instead of a statement being true or false, if could be 0.5 true 0.00125 true.
Other forms of logic don't examine things in terms of "truth" but rather justification or proof.Others are concerned with ways to make some reasoning in a rigorous way, even with inconsistent or incomplete information.
It is a mistake from the very start to assume that logical axioms are true, or somehow integral and immutable within reality. They are no more an integral part of reality than parallel lines or angles. all of these things are ideas, and rules that we impose to help make sens of nature, but they are descriptive of reality, they do not define it.
You are the one that give credence to imaginary beings, not I...
But seriously, there are a host of different systems of logic. It is a tool to use to make sense of the universe, not a set of rules the universe must obey. Classical logic works well in many cases to describe the way things seem to "work", but for certain applications, under certain conditions, other systems of logic are more appropriate. The simplest example I can give you is trinary logic, which is used quite a bit in electronics. Instead of a binary true or false, a system can return three values, true, false or don't care (often represented with a high impedence state). If you extend it further, you can use fuzzy logic, which has an infinite number(theoretically anyway) of values, becasue any number between 0 and one is a valid truth value. So instead of a statement being true or false, if could be 0.5 true 0.00125 true.
Other forms of logic don't examine things in terms of "truth" but rather justification or proof.Others are concerned with ways to make some reasoning in a rigorous way, even with inconsistent or incomplete information.
It is a mistake from the very start to assume that logical axioms are true, or somehow integral and immutable within reality. They are no more an integral part of reality than parallel lines or angles. all of these things are ideas, and rules that we impose to help make sens of nature, but they are descriptive of reality, they do not define it.
-NoCapo
Fuzzy logic my work in electronics, but it irrelevant when describing logical absolutes such as the law of identity or excluded middle in the real world. Im guessing that wont matter to you though...because you don't really seem to want to address the real issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
