The Debate Hall Social Thread

[ballin4life]

Is that meant to rebut my point that logic can't be logically proven to find truth without using a circular argument?

yes of course

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

yes of course

Unless you define truth as the outcome of logic, there is nothing to say that logic always leads to truth. And even if there was, if it was logical, the required to prove that logic worked would rely on the assumption that logic worked.

If you did define truth as the outcome of logic, it would be merely a tautology and it would reduce truth to merely a conclusion of the deductive process.

 

[ballin4life]

Unless you define truth as the outcome of logic, there is nothing to say that logic always leads to truth. And even if there was, if it was logical, the required to prove that logic worked would rely on the assumption that logic worked.

If you did define truth as the outcome of logic, it would be merely a tautology and it would reduce truth to merely a conclusion of the deductive process.

Yes and that's exactly what I am saying

 

[Dre89]

Bob- The difference between logic and science is that to do that science has to invoke an external premise, one of pure logic. In the case of logic, logic isn't invoking an external premise.

Even if we accept that the argument is circular, at least it's still consistent in that it didn't need an external method to conclude a truth, whereas science, in invoking a premise of pure logic, does rely on an external method.

As for your second point, when I say science I mean all empirical reasoning and anything that is falsifiable through demonstration. So whilst most people don't believe knowledge is exclusive to the academic discipline science, alot believe it is exclusive to what I described above.

 

[blazedaces]

Bob- The difference between logic and science is that to do that science has to invoke an external premise, one of pure logic. In the case of logic, logic isn't invoking an external premise.

Even if we accept that the argument is circular, at least it's still consistent in that it didn't need an external method to conclude a truth, whereas science, in invoking a premise of pure logic, does rely on an external method.

As for your second point, when I say science I mean all empirical reasoning and anything that is falsifiable through demonstration. So whilst most people don't believe knowledge is exclusive to the academic discipline science, alot believe it is exclusive to what I described above.

Dre... I really don't know anyone who at least when questioned to a further extent believes science is the ONLY way to conclude truths. It would imply as someone said above that math/logic/philosophy NEVER conclude anything... and I doubt many people when questioned would say that.

Maybe you know many of them, but I don't and no one in the debate hall tried to defend the claim...

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Again, I said most people think you can only conclude a truth if it is demonstratsbly falsifiable. This is limiting them to empirical observation and mathematics.

It's why a lot of people think God debates and metaphysics, or even philisohy in general are pointless.

 

[blazedaces]

Again, I said most people think you can only conclude a truth if it is demonstratsbly falsifiable. This is limiting them to empirical observation and mathematics.

It's why a lot of people think God debates and metaphysics, or even philisohy in general are pointless.

I will concede that quite a number of people do... but "most" I would say do not. Most people have never considered or heard the term "demonstrably falsifiable".

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

But most people believe a unicorn is not metaphysically necessary, but they wouldn't have even understood what I just said.

 

[blazedaces]

But most people believe a unicorn is not metaphysically necessary, but they wouldn't have even understood what I just said.

Above is an approximate breakdown of the world religions. Despite whatever you may believe Dre, most of the world believes in God and furthermore in a major religion.

These ideas are not supported by science, but by faith. Therefore, it's rather easy to deduce most of the world does not believe everything must be falsifiable in order to be concluded a truth.

The debate hall does not represent the average of the world we live in ... and neither does the educated group of individuals you probably go to school and hang out with often (I am making an assumption, but I doubt it's not true).

-blazed

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yes and that's exactly what I am saying

So truth is merely the end result of the deductive process?

Bob- The difference between logic and science is that to do that science has to invoke an external premise, one of pure logic. In the case of logic, logic isn't invoking an external premise.

Even if we accept that the argument is circular, at least it's still consistent in that it didn't need an external method to conclude a truth, whereas science, in invoking a premise of pure logic, does rely on an external method.

Science relies heavily on logic anyway, to accept science, one must accept logic. I think of science as an add on to logic, so if I'm right, you really wouldn't be invoking an external premise. And honestly both arguments would be circular, which means that they would be invalid anyway. Sure they're not self-contradictory, but you still can't prove that either of them reach truth.

As for your second point, when I say science I mean all empirical reasoning and anything that is falsifiable through demonstration. So whilst most people don't believe knowledge is exclusive to the academic discipline science, alot believe it is exclusive to what I described above.

Right. Examples? Is mathematics empirical? I would have thought it was closer to pure logic than to science.

 

[adumbrodeus]

What's your read on me dre?

Scum, obvious scum.

Vote: ballin4life

logic defines truth

No logic is a mathmatical system that is used to find truth because it is the most efficient known method.

Like all math it is an evolving system where new discoveries are being made and old methodologies are constantly being falsified due to contradictions.

Furthermore it can never prove anything independently, therefore if "truth" is essentially the end result of logic and only the end result of logic, then there is no truth whatsoever.


This is because the building blocks of logic are axioms and other presuppositions which cannot be proven logically, things like "what is a point" or "how do I know that the universe exists". The former has been worked on for ages, while the latter is simply due to the lack of the ability to confirm sensory input by anything other then sensory input. Linguistic determinism is the possibility I can think of here, but at best it can only confirm that the universe is not an illusion you created from your own mind.


Your argument is self-defeating philosophically, a much better use for logic is as a component in the definition of truth, namely, tack this on to your definition of truth, "if something isn't logical it cannot be true".

 

[Theftz22]

Logic does not define truth but truth presupposes the logical absolutes. Maintaining that something is true means maintaining it is the case. But we need the logical absolutes to be able to say that that thing is what it is, it is the case and is not not the case, and it is either the case or not the case. Without the absolutes the very concept of truth is incoherent.

 

[Dre89]

Adumb- I think your analysis of logic is a bit off.

Specific branches of logic and their extensions (pretty much every academic discipline) all ultimately fall back on the axiom that logic in general is valid, but this is not merely an assumption.

As I tried to demonstrate earlier, logic is validated in that rejecting logic still entails logical validity. It's similar to trying to prove nothing exists- but whatever proves it must exist.

And logic isn't mathematical, mathematics is logical. Mathematics relies on logical axioms. The fact you think logic is mathematical is probably why you think logic rests upon multiple axioms.

 

[ballin4life]

Logic does rest on axioms, but these axioms are more like definitions of truth means than axioms in the mathematical sense (which tell you what objects you're working with and what you can do with them).

 

[Ocean]

the only axioms that logic really relies on are the law of non-contradiction ( ~( p and ~p ) ), law of identity ( a = a ), law of excluded middle, and modus ponens ( if p then q, p therefore q ).

 

[ballin4life]

That's what I mean. Non-contradiction, identity, and excluded middle are part of the definition of truth.

Modus ponens seems to me more like the definition of the "implication" relation.

 

[Ocean]

I know I was just showing what the axioms because apparently some people don't know.

 

[Theftz22]

Prescriptions: I didn’t suggest that you did.

You certainly seemed to when you said “You have yet to explain how you get an ought that is not based on a definition or empirical means. Transferring the problem to different words such as duty or obligation does nothing to solve it, it simply avoids it.” As though it were incumbent upon me to demonstrate and prove that, as though that was the position I was defending.

Theism: The past leaves empirical evidence. This is how we are able to know things about the past. A world where everyone comes from Adam and Eve will leave distinct differences from a world where we diverge from the same branch that other apes diverged from. These differences are what allows us to empirically test our hypotheses that pertain to the past.

I certainly don’t doubt that different past events will yield an empirically different present (though I would affirm that it takes more than empirical observation to be able to make the inference from the present empirical data to the past event), however it seems to me that concerning an issue of ancient history like the case of Jesus, there is not much if any empirical difference between a world with or without the divine Jesus. What empirical evidence do you think we should be seeing if Jesus existed and was who he claimed to be?

Nothingness: I don’t follow. If for every instance there is nothing, something material follows from that fact, how can we say nothing did not cause something material? Isn’t that what it means to say that something caused something? As for this nothingness referring to some concept, I am still unsure about that. If it does, I don’t know what it refers to.

Firstly I didn’t state that something has to necessarily come into being in any case in which nothing exists. I just tried to show that it is at least possible. However even if I had argued that position, it still would not be sufficient to establish a causal relationship, unless you are adopting a Humean view of causation, in which there really is nothing to causation anyway so we certainly could not say that nothing causes anything. And nothingness surely refers to a concept, the concept of the absence of anything at all. This would certainly seem to be a coherent concept as it isn’t meaningless gibberish or an explicitly contradictory statement, so if you wish to argue that it doesn’t refer to any concept you have some unstated premises that would serve to make the contradiction explicit.

Knowledge: What is necessary and sufficient for knowledge depends on how you define knowledge. If you define it in terms of justified true belief, it depends on how you define justified and true. This is simple semantics, nothing interesting here.

Well I do of course agree that the necessary and sufficient conditions will vary depending on how we define knowledge. What I deny is that we will completely elucidate an answer to this question by merely defining justified and true. The conditions for justification is one of the richest fields in epistemology and I would advise you to check it out as it definitely involves more than mere semantics.

I agree that someone can use Bayesian probability incorrectly. In such a case, you can correct them and tell them the error. In the case you mentioned, you can point to them the fact that they didn’t consider the probability that they had an auditory hallucination given the non-existence of god. We know that we are not perfect processors of information so anyone who thinks that this probability is low would be deluding themselves. This is why skepticism is warranted when evaluating the evidence, since we have seen that we have the tendency to favor evidence that supports our original guess (confirmation bias). This may also convince them that they are overvaluing their experience towards a specific hypothesis and make them re-evaluate it. Anybody can plug any value into the formula, that is why they have to demonstrate them empirically in order for anyone else to belief it as well. As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. You can plug in values that say anything, which is why you need to demonstrate that they are empirical, rather than speculative.

Yes one can misuse Bayesian probability by not plugging in actual evidence into the equation, that is not plugging in actually true facts. However this is not the point. The point is that determining whether or not those facts you plug in are true or justified is beyond the scope of Bayesian probability. You cannot use probability theory to determine if some fact proposed as evidence is true. You can only use the theorem after determining what is true and justified. The theorem is of no use in this task and only comes into play after we have resolved these issues. Therefore your definition of knowledge still does nothing to answer the central questions of epistemology. I keep trying to explain to you that the definition of knowledge is a relatively small issue in this field, it is after we define knowledge that we answer the central questions, these are not merely definitional.

I simply don’t find the definition of 100% certainty to be helpful. I’m perfectly comfortable saying that “I know the sun will exist tomorrow” or that “I know the Earth revolves around the Sun” even though they are not %100 certain. This is because I have a very, very high degree of confidence that they are true. If they turn out not to be the case, then I would update my beliefs and say that I know better. If we reserve knowledge for only things known with %100 certainty, like I said before, this would not include anything from science and would likely include only things true or false by definition and meaningless claims (basically anything that doesn’t need evidence). I don’t think this dichotomy is a useful one. What purpose is there to say that you don’t know anything about the world? We “know” that some things are more likely to happen than not in comparison to other things. In science, we call the things that are incredibly accurate “knowledge”. This gives a guide as to what we should trust when new ideas are formed. If it goes against established science, then it is probably incorrect. If it goes against preliminary studies, then we need to have a skeptical eye on both the original study and the new idea. If you were to dump everything previously known about the world through science since it doesn’t achieve % 100 certainties, then we would be without a guide. The distinction serves no purpose.

The point here is that you cannot know something that is false. If it ends up false, then you really didn’t know it in the first place, hence why the beliefs must be true and not just probably true. If it makes you feel any better about the fact that science does not contribute to our knowledge, not much philosophy does either. About the only things I can know are the logical absolutes and maybe that I exist. Anyway like I said, true is higher than probably true, and on your definition there is therefore something higher than knowledge. But knowledge is supposed to be a maximum on the scale of certainty. There is no word for this maximum on your definition but that is what I mean by knowledge. I’m happy to use your definition of knowledge however for the sake of convenience when talking about epistemological questions in areas in which we cannot be certain.

Begging the question: I haven’t assumed it a priori, it is a conclusion based on observation. If religions had constructed the most accurate models, then they would be preferred, they would be mainstream “science.” I think the problem here is one of terms. Science can either be defined in terms of the scientific method or based on its etymology. If it is based on its etymology, meaning with knowledge, then it would be circular (i.e. whatever method creates knowledge is “science”, therefore science, as defined as the scientific method, creates knowledge). However, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that we can compare the different methodologies and then compare how well they conform to nature (because that is our goal). The one that conforms most accurately to nature is the best methodology for our goal. The scientific method has performed the best. Since the scientific method performed the best, it has become synonymous with “science”, even though it needn’t be the case.

I don’t know how many times I can reiterate that I understand that the goal is to judge how well our methods represent nature as it actually is, it’s just that that is the whole issue in question. How do we know what method best represents nature? When you set up the experiment you act as though we can just compare results to nature as it actually is, when in fact if we knew how nature actually is we wouldn’t need the test in the first place. By making the scientific method the judge of what best models nature you presuppose that the scientific method is the proper method, which is what you are trying to prove. This results in the many, many absurdities that I’ve already catalogued.

Realism: So, let’s say that scientific models do not model reality, what then do they model? The only way I know how to determine (define) what is real versus not real is whether they fit into the most accurate model of reality. I can tell if an organic flower is real because if I see something that takes the form of an flower, from this observation I can predict what my other senses will perceive. If they don’t, if the predictions fail, then it is not real (maybe I feel it is plastic and therefore is fake) and is instead an illusion. If they are successful, this increases the probability that they are real. Sure the model will not always be accurate, but every time it fails, it is an improvement (because it now conforms to another feature of reality). I simply do not know what it means to say otherwise, which is why I want others to define reality before embarking on this avenue since I don’t know what they are referring to. By the way, model building is science’s forte.

The idea would be that they would be like useful tools for understanding what we observe around us, but can’t claim to have accurate representation of ultimate reality as it actually is. Again, I’ve already provided a basic definition of reality as “the totality of all actually existent things”, that is not the issue here. Now I will not here be defending anti-realist arguments or attacking realist ones, because it should suffice to say that any arguments in this area are beyond the scope of science as they directly question the entire nature of science, such that it is impossible to argue scientifically about it.

Modal Logic: “If they are successful”…that’s a big “if”. Do people take those other arguments as seriously as the model ontological argument?

Yes, I can assure you that the modal argument for dualism is still widely used an debated by dualists along with their other favorite arguments like the qualia argument. Kripke’s argument against identity theory was a hugely influential argument that had hundreds of pages dedicated to it in the highest philosophical journals and has now almost completely convinced philosophers and logicians of the impossibility of contingent identity. The modal argument against utilitarianism I’ll concede is not a widely used or argument. The modal ontological argument as you mention however, is.

Dualism: This commits the masked man fallacy. The masked man fallacy describes the series of events that goes like this. Suppose someone robs a bank wearing a mask. You read this in the paper and think about the robber robbing the bank. The investigators find reasonable cause to arrest your friend. You then try to defend him with the following argument. Yesterday, I was thinking about the masked man, but I was not thinking about my friend, since I was able to visualize the masked man independent of my friend they don’t share an identity relationship, therefore the masked man cannot be my friend. Bringing this back to dualism, saying that you can visualize your mind apart from your body is similar to saying that you could visualize the masked man distinct from your friend. They may share an identity relationship, yet your visualization does not reflect reality. This is why the concept of self becomes fuzzy, we are not imagining the same concept in reality even though they share some similar characteristics.

I could say the same thing concerning my hand. I am able to conceive that someone else could have the same physical composition as my hand. What does this prove? Nothing, there is not an identity relationship between my hand and what I conceive to be my hand on their body. That fact doesn’t change the fact that my hand refers to a particular physical composition. If I change that physical composition, injury for example, then that change also applies to my hand. However, that change in physical composition won’t reflect on the copy of my hand on the other person, so the two don’t have an identity relationship. The “my” hand and the copy (visualization) of “my” hand are not identical concepts. When you say that it is imaginable that one’s mind could exist outside the body (which I would correct as brain), it must actually be “your” mind, not some copy of it, because then you are introducing another concept that is similar yet is not equivalent to what your trying to prove, which makes the rest of the argument a non-sequitor.

I think that your charge of the argument committing the masked man fallacy is quite mistaken. The masked man fallacy is saying that because I know what x is, but I don’t know what y is, therefore x is not identical to y. However the move from premise 3 to the conclusion makes no such argument. The possibility referred to in premise is not epistemic possibility, rather it is ontic possibility. That is to say that it does not say, for all we know, the mind could exist without the body. If it did, the argument would surely be invalid. Rather it says, the mind exists separately from the body in some possible world. Now perhaps your real objection here is to say that the move from premise 2 to 3 is the invalid one. For you might argue that conceivability only implies epistemic, not ontic possibility. However I don’t think this is the case. We may argue that ontologically impossible things are not conceivable, for instance no one is able to conceive of a square circle or a married bachelor. The ontologically impossible is nowhere to be found in the imagination, we cannot even conceive of such things. However it therefore follows that if something is in fact conceivable, then it cannot be ontologically impossible, and hence it is an ontic possibility. That is why conceivability implies not just epistemic possibility, but also ontic possibility.

Considering that I would consider consciousness to be sense data (our senses are interpreted in the brain, so it would be inaccurate to say that our sense of touch resides in our hands, etc.), it would be hard for me to think of a source of knowledge that we get that does not go though this processor of ours. What, are you going to learn something while unconscious? Doesn't seem like a controversial statement to reject that.Any data to back that up?

The philosophical use of the term “sense experience” does not include activities of the consciousness such as reasoning and the like, this is just disingenuous. Sense experience only refers to sight, taste, touch, sound, or scent experiences, regardless of whether or not you think the mind is distinct from the brain.

I've also started to put in red claims of yours that cannot be verified empirically, and thus are ruled out by your epistemology. I've retroactively applied this to some older posts too, check it out!

 

[rvkevin]

I've also started to put in red claims of yours that cannot be verified empirically, and thus are ruled out by your epistemology. I've retroactively applied this to some older posts too, check it out!

Questions are not claims. Besides, most of the sentences you highlighted are semantic claims, which I have already said refer to the map and not the territory, thereby not relevant to the pursuit of finding out about the territory. This is kind of sad that you can't differentiate between a claim about the world and one that is not.

Prescriptions: Sorry, I thought you were saying that philosophy was able to help us learn about nature. After all, this is what this entire discussion is/was all about. If you don’t think it is pertinent to show that prescriptions are other than empirical or semantics, then this example does nothing to further your point.

Theism: The predictions would depend on what he said. What type of deity did Jesus claim to be? A jealous one, a loving one, a merciful one, a judicial one, an irrelevant one?

Nothingness: When you say that nothing is “the concept of the absence of anything at all.” Do you mean that it is the absence of any physical thing at all or merely the absence of any characteristic at all? I doubt it refers to the former since whenever a physicist brings it up, the objection is that they are not talking about nothing. If the latter, then it is a contradictory concept for reasons already stated. By definition, there cannot be a universe with nothing because then that universe would then have the characteristic of nothingness. So, please state which one and what we learned about the universe from this discovery .

Knowledge: “What I deny is that we will completely elucidate an answer to this question by merely defining justified and true.” I want to test that claim, define justified and true and we shall find out whether it leads to any interesting information.

Science:“By making the scientific method the judge of what best models nature you presuppose that the scientific method is the proper method, which is what you are trying to prove” What do you mean by “prove” and “proper method” here? To me, proper method is merely a measurement of predictive success. This is because our goal is to accurately model nature. Surely you would grant that science has a greater predictive capability over, say, religion? Where does the disagreement lie in this one?

Realism: You haven’t meaningfully defined reality. You merely said it is the class of things that exist. This is basically saying that reality is the class of things that are real. Like I said for prescriptions, assigning the meaning of a word to another word does not solve the problem. Using this definition, you are unable to distinguish what is real versus what is not. I agree this is not in the scope of science, it is still yet to leave the realm of semantics. That is the issue here.

Dualism: I explained what I meant there, even if the example does not refer to the dictionary definition. The way I phrased it was that you can think that you are imagining an identity relationship, when in fact you are not. You can think that you are imagining the masked man, when in fact you are not. If you claim that this imagined masked man is the same as the masked man, you have equated two different things that don’t share an identity relationship. You do this when you claim that the support for the first premise is that the imagined mind is not the same as the body, therefore we can imagine our mind without our body.

You left my claim that the mind and imagined mind don’t share an identity relationship unanswered. Suppose you can imagine the mind (IM) separate from the brain (B) such that IM=/=B. However, we want to find out whether or not the brain (B) has an identity relationship with the mind (M) such that B=M. You need to prove that M=IM before you are able to support the first premise. This is what I am contesting with the hand example. My hand (H) has an identity relationship to the physical hand (PH), whereas the imagined hand (IH) does not have an identity relationship with PH because IH does not have an identity relationship with H. This is really easy to test. Imagine that IH is injured. Did PH get injured? No. So IH and PH don’t share an identity relationship. So when you say that IH does not share an identity relationship with H, that is pointless, since the proposed relationship is between H and PH, not H and IH. Until then, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Sense Data: OK, philosophical definitions might be a little out of date then. People can have visions without functional eyes. This is because the brain plays a role in the processing this sense data that allows this experience. Take a functional brain, but nothing to see, and you will eventually have visual experiences. The brain processes information, regardless of whether it is given data from the eyes or other. Take a damaged brain, but otherwise functional eyes, and you will not have any visual experience, but you will be able to act on that information. This sense experience is merely brain processing. We observe that the processes for certain activities don’t involve one region in the brain, or one sense, they are usually working in tandem (i.e. reading relies heavily on hearing, Grapheme-color synesthesia, etc.). What reason do we have for believing that consciousness is independent to these other senses?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Considered putting this subsection on Craigslist to garner more interest. I think Debate Hall Archives can be filed under: for sale >> collectibles. On another note, I've been reading Sam Harris's Moral Landscape. I have mixed feelings about it at the moment. The introduction was wasted by him repeating his hypothesis repeatedly that he believes that science can be used to dictate moral truth.

 

[rvkevin]

On another note, I've been reading Sam Harris's Moral Landscape. I have mixed feelings about it at the moment. The introduction was wasted by him repeating his hypothesis repeatedly that he believes that science can be used to dictate moral truth.

What is your starting point? I think people have varying reactions to it depending on what they thing the field of morality is supposed to accomplish...

 

[vVv Rapture]

Hey everyone.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

What is your starting point? I think people have varying reactions to it depending on what they thing the field of morality is supposed to accomplish...

One would think that he was expecting a Christian community to buy and read his book given his emphasis of morals being distinct from spiritualism and to view it as a concept of man-made necessity.

 

[Dre89]

Hey everyone.

Sup.

Doggs- You needed to get a picture of him with the turban. No Hume picture is complete without the turban.

There's a drawing on the net (I can't find it now) where Hume (wearing his turban of course) is holding a rabbit over a magician's hat and he has a speech bubble saying "and for my final act, I shal derive ought from is". Class.

And as for Sam Harris, using science to dictate moral truth? I thought morality was supposed to regulate practices in science...

 

[adumbrodeus]

Logic does rest on axioms, but these axioms are more like definitions of truth means than axioms in the mathematical sense (which tell you what objects you're working with and what you can do with them).

But the fact is that we can never prove them applicable to the real world, we just make the assumption that say a point and a line can be a stand-in for real world values. It's things like this that all logic rests on, and they cannot be logically proven.


Furthermore, you're completely ignoring that there is no independent confirmation of sensory data, therefore even if our senses did not lie to us, it would be circular logic but frankly they do lie to us all the time.

Adumb- I think your analysis of logic is a bit off.

Specific branches of logic and their extensions (pretty much every academic discipline) all ultimately fall back on the axiom that logic in general is valid, but this is not merely an assumption.

As I tried to demonstrate earlier, logic is validated in that rejecting logic still entails logical validity. It's similar to trying to prove nothing exists- but whatever proves it must exist.

And logic isn't mathematical, mathematics is logical. Mathematics relies on logical axioms. The fact you think logic is mathematical is probably why you think logic rests upon multiple axioms.

Incorrect, logic used to be rhetorical, but in the modern times it becomes formalized into a mathematical discipline, namely discrete mathematics.

Frankly conceptually it always was math, it just never was formalized until recently. Frankly, look at every argument you make, could it not into mathmatical logic if you replaced the specific words with mathmatical expressions?

Frankly, math is the foundation of pretty much everything, any academic field can essentially be taken as applied mathmatics except for artistic fields (and even then it's fuzzy).


Now then I'm not pointing out that logic is invalid, I'm pointing out that if logic defines truth truth then nothing can truly exist except oneself. Only when one adds assumptions (axiums of math as well as the assumption of the correctness of sense data) is it possible to prove that anything outside of self exists logically.

Logic does not define truth but truth presupposes the logical absolutes. Maintaining that something is true means maintaining it is the case. But we need the logical absolutes to be able to say that that thing is what it is, it is the case and is not not the case, and it is either the case or not the case. Without the absolutes the very concept of truth is incoherent.

That's pretty much what I'm getting at.

the only axioms that logic really relies on are the law of non-contradiction ( ~( p and ~p ) ), law of identity ( a = a ), law of excluded middle, and modus ponens ( if p then q, p therefore q ).

To exist in and of itself, yes. But I'm not talking about saying that logic itself doesn't exist, I'm pointing out that if logic defines truth then nothing outside of logic and self CAN truthfully exist.

 

[ballin4life]

But the fact is that we can never prove them applicable to the real world, we just make the assumption that say a point and a line can be a stand-in for real world values. It's things like this that all logic rests on, and they cannot be logically proven.

Well, that's going into math, i.e not just logic. Also, we don't actually make that assumption. That's just a model for the "real world".

Anyway, like I said, the axioms like "a proposition is either true or false" are really just definitions of truth as far as I can see.

Furthermore, you're completely ignoring that there is no independent confirmation of sensory data, therefore even if our senses did not lie to us, it would be circular logic but frankly they do lie to us all the time.

No, this is part of the point. You can't determine any truths about the "real world".

Incorrect, logic used to be rhetorical, but in the modern times it becomes formalized into a mathematical discipline, namely discrete mathematics.

Frankly conceptually it always was math, it just never was formalized until recently. Frankly, look at every argument you make, could it not into mathmatical logic if you replaced the specific words with mathmatical expressions?

Frankly, math is the foundation of pretty much everything, any academic field can essentially be taken as applied mathmatics except for artistic fields (and even then it's fuzzy).


Now then I'm not pointing out that logic is invalid, I'm pointing out that if logic defines truth truth then nothing can truly exist except oneself. Only when one adds assumptions (axiums of math as well as the assumption of the correctness of sense data) is it possible to prove that anything outside of self exists logically.

I agree with this last statement here though.

That's pretty much what I'm getting at.


To exist in and of itself, yes. But I'm not talking about saying that logic itself doesn't exist, I'm pointing out that if logic defines truth then nothing outside of logic and self CAN truthfully exist.

I don't agree with this though, because truth is not the same thing as knowledge. Things can be unknown.

 

[Dre89]

Adumb- I don't understand your last point, that if logic defines truth then nothing outside of logic and self can exist.

Also, when we speak of mathematics, is the assumption that mathematics only exists in the mind? Because if mathematics only exists in the mind, then logic, in it's most fundamental sense, is prior to mathematics.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Adumb- I don't understand your last point, that if logic defines truth then nothing outside of logic and self can exist.

Also, when we speak of mathematics, is the assumption that mathematics only exists in the mind? Because if mathematics only exists in the mind, then logic, in it's most fundamental sense, is prior to mathematics.

No, mathematics defines all of existence, it exists in everything.


Logic is both incoherent and incomplete with mathmatics as a basis, logical logic is applied mathmatics.

Well, that's going into math, i.e not just logic. Also, we don't actually make that assumption. That's just a model for the "real world".

Anyway, like I said, the axioms like "a proposition is either true or false" are really just definitions of truth as far as I can see.

Logic is applied mathmatics, applying logic to anything beyond simple rhetoric simply doesn't function without using the mathmatical basis of logic. Math implies logic.

No, this is part of the point. You can't determine any truths about the "real world".

But the point isn't so much that we cannot, it's that it's impossible.

If it's impossible using logic then there is no truth but logic itself. I mean if this is an argument for non-existence of truth, then fair enough. If you define truth by logic, then that's fair enough. But it's not exactly a definition i would adopt.

I don't agree with this though, because truth is not the same thing as knowledge. Things can be unknown.

But to logically prove something exists it must be observable. With no logical way to confirm observations, there can be no truth except logic itself.

This problem is systemic and cannot be dealt with via logic.

 

[ballin4life]

Logic is both incoherent and incomplete with mathmatics as a basis, logical logic is applied mathmatics.

I'd say math is applied logic ... I say that math starts when you begin creating objects with properties (i.e. sets).

But the point isn't so much that we cannot, it's that it's impossible.

But to logically prove something exists it must be observable. With no logical way to confirm observations, there can be no truth except logic itself.

This problem is systemic and cannot be dealt with via logic.

There is no CONFIRMED truth but logic itself.

Anyway, it depends also what you mean by confirming observations. The observations themselves exist. Sure, it is possible that you're just "in the Matrix" or whatever, but you can consider the world that consists of your observations.

 

[Dre89]

I don't see how mathematics is prior to logic. Surely maths (that's what we call it here) must assume principles such as the law of identity and such correct?

Secondly, logic doesn't assume the principles of non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle, because logic is the combinations of those principles. Logic is not separate from those principles.

The reasons those principles are not just mere assumptions is because existence is impossible without it, and we know existence exists.

Also Adumb you need to be more specific when you say to logically prove something it must be observable. Do you mean observe empirically? Because I can logically prove several things without the need for observation, such as the fact I can't be here and in Scotland at the same time, that an object that I've never experienced before had a cause etc.

Secondly, unless you're a scientisimist/traditional empiricist like Rvkevin or Altf4, logic and observation are distinct. Observations are verified by logic.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Also Adumb you need to be more specific when you say to logically prove something it must be observable. Do you mean observe empirically? Because I can logically prove several things without the need for observation, such as the fact I can't be here and in Scotland at the same time, that an object that I've never experienced before had a cause etc.

Although, your statement about Scotland is probably correct, it should be noted that Quantum Mechanics allows things some things on quantum scales under certain conditions to be in two different places at once (called a superposition I believe). This has been observed. Just saying.

And I would say that observation verifies logic, because without accurate premises, you cannot create a sound deductive argument.

 

[AltF4]

Then it sure would pain Dre to learn that you actually CAN be in two places at once. It's called quantum mechanics.

...But then again, you used LOGIC!

 

[blazedaces]

Then it sure would pain Dre to learn that you actually CAN be in two places at once. It's called quantum mechanics.

...But then again, you used LOGIC!

I don't intend to contradict your words...

I actually want to clarify. Quantum mechanics DOES NOT DEFY LOGIC, even if quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive.

I would honestly like to challenge Dre to prove "with logic" that you can't be in two places at once... because before quantum mechanics came along this had a lot to do with the principle of relativity... and while this was also grounded in logic no one ever said that quantum mechanics disproved logic, just conventional relativistic principles under ALL cases. It showed that the laws that governed the macroscopic world were perhaps incomplete and even today we are struggling to try and reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions.

The laws of the universe are not broken... we just lack a complete understanding of them. And that's ok.

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

Oh, right, of course. I don't mean to suggest that quantum mechanics, nor anything really, "defies logic".

Only that it's remarkably easy to come to wrong conclusions when you think you're being logical. That's the entire spirit behind science and empiricism. To accept that you can be wrong, and often are. The proper conclusion is to put any assertions "to the test" and see if they actually hold up in the real world. Not merely reason in your head and assume that you could not possibly have made any errors.

 

[Dre89]

Oh, right, of course. I don't mean to suggest that quantum mechanics, nor anything really, "defies logic".

Only that it's remarkably easy to come to wrong conclusions when you think you're being logical. That's the entire spirit behind science and empiricism. To accept that you can be wrong, and often are. The proper conclusion is to put any assertions "to the test" and see if they actually hold up in the real world. Not merely reason in your head and assume that you could not possibly have made any errors.

The funny thing is here is that you're insinuating that reasoning in your head and assuming you're correct is a poor methodology, yet that's exactly what you've done here.

Honestly Alt you should consider being a philosopher of science, seeing as 90% of the content of all your posts is philosophical.

I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of the stuff you're saying here, but the points you're trying to make with it are what I disagree with.

Science doesn't challenge logic. Science assumes rational order, contigency, and consistency in the universe. This has been stated by scientists themselves.

Now if you and other scientists contest this point, the fact that scientists, both who apply the universal scientific method, have conflicting conclusions, means one of two things-

1. The scientific method does not provide as much clarity as first thought (the unlikely scenario).
2. The more likely scenario, that the question of the relationship between science and logic isn't even a scientific point, therefore simply answering the question assumes logic in the first place.

Also, just a random question, is the law of quantam mechanics itself subject to quantum mechanics/fluctuations/random causation etc.? Because if so, then that law would itself need a governing law, and so would that law, you and would have an infinite regress. This is a variant of the Third Man Fallacy detailed in Plato's Plotinus (a very interesting fallacy in metaphysics, which I encourage you guys to look up, it's pivotal in my personal metaphysics).

Forgive my lack of education in science, but wouldn't the law of quantum mechanics need to itself consistently exist? That would entail rational order, consistency and contingency correct?

 

[rvkevin]

Forgive my lack of education in science, but wouldn't the law of quantum mechanics need to itself consistently exist?

No, a law is a description of nature. A description is not a thing that physically exists.

Also, just a random question, is the law of quantum mechanics itself subject to quantum mechanics/fluctuations/random causation etc.?

No, a law is a description of nature, not a feature of nature.

Science assumes rational order, contigency, and consistency in the universe.

"Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."-Richard Feynman

That would entail rational order, consistency and contingency correct?

If the law has a stochastic variable in it (and the law accurately reflects nature), then many people would call it disordered and random. If you consider this rational order, then there is no state of affair that you would consider disordered, which makes your point moot.

 

[Dre89]

Anything that could have been otherwise is a positive existence. It just isn't necessarily physical or a being.

This is exactly the fallacy that Krauss made when he said there a multiple forms of nothingness. Some scientists (not all) simply assume that if something is not accessible by the scientific method, it needs no explanation. What Krauss is really saying is that there are multiple matterless existences. If Krauss makes the claims that these forms of nothingness don't need an explanation, then he's stepping into metaphysics.

Your Feyman quote is incredibly ironic seeing how the statment that science assumes rationality, order and consistency actually came from a renowned scientist, not a philosopher. I even specified that in my post.

If the law itself is not subject quantum mechanics, and consistently functions, then there is something prior to that law that holds it in place. That's rational order and consistency.

 

[rvkevin]

This is exactly the fallacy that Krauss made when he said there a multiple forms of nothingness. Some scientists (not all) simply assume that if something is not accessible by the scientific method, it needs no explanation. What Krauss is really saying is that there are multiple matterless existences. If Krauss makes the claims that these forms of nothingness don't need an explanation, then he's stepping into metaphysics.

First, I watched that debate and you are misrepresenting what he said. He said that we can hypothesize various conditions at the beginning of the universe that we could aptly call nothing. We can then compute the consequences, and then see which, if any, apply to our universe. This is merely hypothesis, test, confirm or falsify. In other words, he suggested we use science. He did not say that there exists “multiple forms of nothingness.” Second, I would guess that most scientists you think assume that if something is not accessible to science, it needs no explanation don’t actually think that. I think that it would be more accurately to state that they would think that we have no explanation, and that no other method (philosophy) at present is capable of generating an accurate explanation. I’m also curious to hear who you have in mind to see if my guess is correct.

Your Feyman quote is incredibly ironic seeing how the statement that science assumes rationality, order and consistency actually came from a renowned scientist, not a philosopher. I even specified that in my post.

It’s not a new claim. For the context: ““A philosopher once said ‘It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results’. Well, they do not. You set up the circumstances, with the same conditions every time, and you cannot predict behind which hole you will see the electron. ” It should be hard pressed to find a scientist who thinks quantum mechanics is not a science. For that reason alone, I am curious as to who it is. Anyway, if you knew anything about science, you would know it doesn’t matter who said or how famous they were, so until you are able to support your claim, your quote is just an unsupported assertion.

If the law itself is not subject quantum mechanics, and consistently functions, then there is something prior to that law that holds it in place. That's rational order and consistency.

This doesn’t make any sense; please use proper grammar. Also, it would help if you were overly specific rather than overly vague. From the looks of things, it seems like you are jumping from ontology to epistemology, conflating the two, and then thinking you have posed a problem that, as far as I can tell, is actually nonsense. To clarify, there is the law and then the phenomena that the law refers to. When you reference the law, you are talking about the description, the model that we have of nature. To say that something holds this law in place would be akin to saying that science depends on Platonic forms, which is absurd, which is why I suggest you be more precise in what you mean.

 

[Reaver197]

There is no "law" of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics itself is the study of and the accompanying mathematical equations that describe the particle and wave like aspects of matter and energy on subatomic scales. It's a branch of physics. It's no more a "law" than organic chemistry is.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

So, saying that the "law" of quantum mechanics needing a "law" to govern it, or being subject to quantum mechanics, literally makes no sense.

 

[rvkevin]

Quantum mechanics itself is the study of and the accompanying mathematical equations that describe the particle and wave like aspects of matter and energy on subatomic scales.

In case I am part of the reason for the clarification, when I say "law" of quantum mechanics, I am referring to those mathematical equations that have been experimentally verified.