Adrian Selby

Hi there, I have some perhaps confused and general questions regarding what logical laws are, such as the law of non contradiction and so on.

Are they derived from experience, so that they are only principles that we find universal? i.e. conceptual tools if you will.

Or do they have a category of being, only some people I read say that materialists are wrong in thinking there is nothing that is not physical because the laws of logic are not physical yet it is meaningful and true to say 'a thing can only be itself and not another thing'. This makes them sound like they have an ontological status.

Can they even be 'true' as such, is it 'true' that a=a? It can sound like a daft question, but tautologies can be considered to be free of information and as such meaningful but not true or false.

Anyway, you can see my confusion on the matter, any links, ideas or views would be welcome.

Jayjay

I think the so called "laws" of logic are arbitrary, and they seem universal only due to the fact that they happen to apply to the real world. I suppose there's nothing stopping a person from constructing a logic (or would it be "illogic"?) system of axioms that do not have the traditional aristotelian laws as theorems. I don't expect that such logics would be very useful though.

excreationist

I don't think "tautologies" can be considered to be free of information!

Anyway about a = a...
I think it is about symbols/references... say "cat" represents the word cat and [cat] represents an actual physical cat.
"cat" refers to [cat].... so each time "cat" is used, it is referring to [cat]. So "cat" is equivalent to "cat". = means "is equivalent to". So a = a is another way of saying "a symbol referring to an object is equivalent to an identical symbol" this is true since they are both referring to the same object.

I think the "laws of logic" are just about patterns.... our brain is very good at recognising patterns in things - and using these patterns... e.g. we can learn to associate the spoken word "red" with the sensation of red colour receptors being activated - as well as other related things - like a red robin or a firetruck, etc.

Anyway, things like physics formulas or logical laws, etc, just express patterns that we have discovered in our physical world. And this information was discovered using physical processes, and it is stored on a physical medium (e.g. neurons, paper, magnetic tape, etc), it is analysed/processed in a physical way (through neurons firing).

So anyway, there seem to be largescale patterns that exist right throughout the universe... e.g. about cause and effect through time (at least in the macroscopic world). If patterns didn't exist there wouldn't be structure or any order to the universe - it would be absolutely random and chaotic. It seems that structure, stability, consistency, etc, are necessary for life and intelligence to evolve and remain active for a relatively long amount of time... I mean if everything was absolutely random, it would be highly unlikely that anything that could be said to be life or consciousness to exist for longer than a brief instant... but even having particles that keep existing through time but change a bit involves a large scale pattern... proper chaos would probably involve particles just disappearing and appearing for no reason at all.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

There are numerous systems of 'logic' which are based on incorrect, false, or fictitious premises.

These are 'castles in the air' philosophies, and are not 'rational', in that they do not apply to reality.

Logic is a tool, and can only lead to a true, accurate understanding of reality, if it is built on accurate, real, true premises.

Keith.

tk

Great that at long last someone's asking such a question. Logic is a rigorous process by which one starts with some premises and/or axioms, all of which are taken to be true, and derives other true statements in a verifiable way. A good introduction on formal logic is available.

Aristotle did also write on logic, but unfortunately his works contain errors.

Seeker196

If you begin with false premises, if you do not make an error you will end with false conclusions.

Premises precede from previous conclusions.

Ultimately, all premises rest on the assumption that ones senses are accurate.

Yet, those same senses (memory, observation etc) tell us that they are often inaccurate and unreliable (compared to what you ask).

So all premises based on sense impressions have a 50% chance of veracity (either true or fale, unless you believe in a true/false state), and therefore all such conclusions have the same chance of veracity.

Options I see:
1. Reality is inherently uncertain. It is logical to do 'what seems to work', and believe what 'seems to be' regardless of whether we are actually being decieved. We should only change our minds if the possible illusion is uncovered.

This is because there is no difference between a sufficient illusion and reality, sufficient meaning an illusion indistinguishable form the truth without further evidence, such evidence perhaps being impossible.

2. Like 1, except we should never accept any premise or conclusion as being true or false, merely appearing to be true, or appearing to be false. Thus, agnosticism, my position. If all premises have an uncertain veracity, than so do all conclusions and only fools can claim to have 'unequivocal knowledge'. I believe, however, there are certain non-sense based premises which can be used to give you unequivocal conclusions (bare bones Descartes)

3. Reality is inherently uncertain because 'true' and 'false' are symbols which only represent socio-political realities, not physical. Everything is literally true and false. THere is no excluded middle, and therefore the Witch Doctor both miracuolously healed you and you died, Jesus was real and false, etc.

4. My senses ARE accurate in any empirical sense. Starting from descartes candle and room, the only way I have to tell the candle is real is to test (observe). Result: Looks like a candle. If a man comes in and says 'Sorry descartes, that was a hologram' I'll believe him if he shows me the projector or otherwises gives sense-evidence.


However, if there is no contradictory evidence then I KNOW there is a candle, it is true that I see a candle, therefore I see a candle.
....but True Materialist, what if you're wrong?
TM: then I'm wrong. When I'm right, I'm right, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
...but TM what if you are ALWAYS wrong?
TM: uhmm......I guess I have to admit that what I call knowledge is only the appearance of knowledge.........ummmm....wait!! There is no difference between a sufficient illusion and reality! ....no fair TM, your turning into an agnostic now
......TM: but wait! If there is no difference then I have knowledge!!
.....so then the Christian who believes he has a deep, non-sexual, non-erotic, non-sadomasochistic relationship with Jesus Christ also has 'knowledge'? After all, he has had sense impressions of angels, Jesus speaking in his heart, etc. He has seen the 'candle'.

TM: But....but it's not the same!


Why not? (answer this agnostic please)

excreationist

Seeker196:
So you can probably convince most people that it is possible that their senses have been deceiving them as far as the nature of reality goes.
If supernatural Christian world-views are equally valid beliefs to materialistic ones, perhaps you'd agree that Christian creationism should get an equal amount of teaching time devoted to it as evolution does in public schools... ?

Seeker196

No, I'm agnostic with regard to certain types of god/non-material views, but I'm atheist with regard to the JC God of the Bible, whom I believe is incoherent.

And I believe there IS a difference between faith-evidence and evidence, it's just that I am having trouble justifying that belief.

Right now, I can only fall back on 'if I burn my hand, it hurts', but can't the Christians fall back on 'If I feel Christ in my heart, or up my ass, or anything part of my anatomy, then he's real'?

Jayjay

I think those are two different kinds of statements... "if I burn my hand, it hurts" is an empirical observation that there may be a connection between burnign your hand, and it hurting, whereas "if I feel christ, he is real" is a metaphysical claim regarding the existence of Christ. I mean, even if the christian may feel something (joy? comfort? holiness?) he is making a leap when he assumes that Christ is the source of this, because he is not directly observing Christ but only the feeling "up his ass". There is no such leap involved in connecting direct observation (burning hand) to another direct observation (pain).

That's my take on it.

Seeker196

Ok. I think that's good....

but what about a nutball who actually does see a burning bush or a an apparition? Why should he believe us when we say 'your a nut'?