Philosoft

Heh.

Now show this by pointing out an instance where a fundamental law of logic has been violated. Give an example of something that both exists and does not exist.

<strong> Does everything reduce to mysticism with you WJ?

universatile

Something that exists and doesnt exist at the same time? Whats the difference between the two? That is faulty in the same manner as the law of non- contradiction (which is of course complete BS). Truth is Falsity because without falsity there would be no Truth.
Therefore existance is non-existance and everything that doesnt exist does exist.

Philosoft

Are you sure you couldn't find a few more ways to say absolutely nothing?

Vorkosigan

This site on the evolution of logic in humans might give you some things to think about, Goochpa.

<a href="http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html" target="_blank">Primer on Evolutionary Psychology</a>

I don't if rule-governedness necessarily implies logic. Is there another way to think about it? I mean, a rule could be sort of simply obeyed without reference to validity ... for example, every time you encounter something blue, whistle the love theme from The Godfather. If you did that, you would be following a rule, but I don't think you could argue that logic was involved. So rule-governedness alone might not be enough to invoke some relationship between language and logic, if the rules are simply ad hoc.

This subject is way too deep for me, so I'm bailing.

Vorkosigan

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Yes, there are systems of thought and belief that have internal, consistent logic, but which are not based on sound, factual, 'true', initial premises.

Christians often claim that their faith is also 'logical', but they forget that there is a great deal of evidence--biological, archaeological, and historical--which contradicts the basic beliefs of Christianity.

I agree that a system based on 'formal' logic is not necessarily 'true'. I believe that a 'true' belief system must be based on correct initial premises, as well as having evidentiary support at every step, in addition to being correct logically.

Any errors or contradictions within such a system shows where additional work (research, thought) needs to be done.

Keith.

universatile

Oh believe you me theres much more where that came from.

WJ

"Now show this by pointing out an instance where a fundamental law of logic has been violated. Give an example of something that both exists and does not exist."

Are you talking about the world of half-existence?I think John and I discussed the idea of a ball spinning being 'both red and green all' over without the benefit of a stoppage in time to fully examine it. Or in quantam physics where the nature of atoms/subatomic particles exibit a half-existence because they cannot be defined as having definite motion and definite position at the same time. Or incomplete systems in nature, or the paradox of the existence of fundamental laws in nature (timeless-math) and human Beings who are completely dependent on time for intellectual development, or even the simple act of procreation where initial stages of development are either/or as in another attribute of half-existence in nature, etc..

I'm not sure what you are getting at? If we are talking about the nature of a thing or what it means for something to exist, then there are either unknowns, or seemingly logical contradictions that do exist in nature as a result of them not being fully known, complete, or developed in time. One example of a strange brew in consciousness was where we express our thoughts thru language and both sentience and pure reason are mixed together as an insoluble subjective/objective relationship as derived from our perceptions and perceiving things in the world. In other words, the nature of our will 'to be' is an illogical mixture of the act of understanding and expression of pure reason and feeling.

If by example I simply state a timeless universal truth by saying "1+1=2", why do I have this need to assert that in the first place? The underlying motivation/need/nature of my existence compels me to assert that for some unknown reason, which is? And whatever it is, the truth about the concept 1+1 doesn't change with time, but our understanding of the world does, not to mention the 'intrinsic nature' our own Being (which is dependant on time for our understanding of 'truth' to even emerge by and thru this same time dependant act of our own existing). And as such 1+1 will coninue to exist without us.

Are those some ideas of what you mean by a sort of half-existence or incomplete attribute of an existing thing/violation of logic in our reality?
Or said another way, some things about existence we can't simply say 'true', 'false' or even 'completely unknown' to, because we may know and understand the value and meaning of half-truth's.

My head hurts...

wali

John Page

?? strike "illogical" insert "imaginary"
Its not timeless and universal. A truth is something that exists within a mind and can be perceived. The fact that applying the same rules to 1 + 1 always yields 2 doesn;t make it universal. The rules makes the result of the sum repeatable (and therefore, in a sense, timeless) but in no way continuous. That you observe the same quantity is yielded by your addition every time makes it true that 1+1=2, but its only true when it happens.

I seem to remember we had a debate about truth and time before. You may wish to consider truth as an eternal flame, my concept is more of a reliable match.

Cheers, John

WJ

John!

Actually, your statement goes beyond disagreement, it is truely false. The laws of nature, which are mathematical, are universal and timeless [truth]. I'm supprised you missing the obvious. The fact that things that exist can be counted is one clue; the other is the 'ureasonable' effectiveness of mathematical abstracts/formulas in describing nature as when it's applied.

cookocachoo!

John Page

By truely false do you mean logically false, or some other kind of falsity?
Please substantiate.

The "laws" of nature are not the laws of mathematics. Both are imputed by the mind, as are the results that they yield. Unless we can visit all the universe that has existed at all times no proof or disproof is available and your statement falls into the same category as claims for the existence of the IPU deity.
The counting is performed by the mind/brain. Why is the effect of mathematics unreasonable? Are you saying that there are certain laws of mathematics that cannot be substantiated?

Cheers, John