The Argument from the Laws of Logic

The Argument from the Laws of Logic

The Laws of Logic exist
Examples of laws of logic are:
A cannot be A and not A at the same time.
Something cannot bring itself into existence.

The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature
Logic is a process of the mind
Logical absolutes are conceptual conventions.

The Laws of logic are not the product of the universe
Logic is not a process of the universe
Laws of Logic are not found "under rocks", or "inside atoms," etc. They are not related to physical properties.

The Laws of logic are not the product of human minds
The laws of logic are absolute. Human beings' minds are not absolute. They differ. They disagree. Therefore, what is absolute to one person may or may not be absolute to another. Therefore, they are not the product of human minds.
The laws of logic are not dependent upon people since they are true whether or not people exists.

The Laws of logic are transcendent
The laws of logic are not dependent upon the universe since they are true whether or not the universe exists.
The laws of logic transcend space and time since they are true no matter where you go in the universe and they are true no matter when you exist in the universe.

The laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent.
Since the laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent and since conceptual realities require a mind, and since the conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them, then the mind that thinks the laws of logic is absolute and transcendent.

Therefore, there is an absolute, transcendent mind in existence.

Interesting thought. I'll have to digest that some more.

I agree with just about all of that but I think it would be better labeled an explanation rather than an argument.

If you replaced "the laws of logic" with "the Tao" it would sound very Taoist.

I like it.

Logic is not absolute - Logic is a tool of perception, and not an all-powerful one.

All Cretans are absolute liars;
I, Epimenides, am a Cretan;
thus I am an absolute liar?

Epimenides (some 2600 years ago) understood the implicit fallibility of logic: It has no imagination, and it does not precede the mind of man in the universe.

There is much about the universe, and the human condition, that Logic fails to explain, and cannot account for.

Therein lies the chaotic, whorling fingerprint of God. Not in fine details of quantified laws and theories, but in the beautiful grand explosion of potentiality that is, from a perspective completely ineffable to us, the greater schema and order of it all.

Uriah wrote:

Logic is not absolute - Logic is a tool of perception, and not an all-powerful one.

All Cretans are absolute liars;
I, Epimenides, am a Cretan;
thus I am an absolute liar?

Epimenides (some 2600 years ago) understood the implicit fallibility of logic: It has no imagination, and it does not precede the mind of man in the universe.

There is much about the universe, and the human condition, that Logic fails to explain, and cannot account for.

Therein lies the chaotic, whorling fingerprint of God. Not in fine details of quantified laws and theories, but in the beautiful grand explosion of potentiality that is, from a perspective completely ineffable to us, the greater schema and order of it all.

What isn't absolute about A cannot be A and not A at the same time?

Because A can be A and not A at the same time.

Proof: The famous Double Slit experiment in Quantum physics.


Here's a fun little syllogism for you,
Logic is completely based on human perception.
Human perception is fallible.
Therefore logic is fallible.


The point is that Logic, like all tools, has a myriad of uses. You can use, for instance, a wrench to pound a nail - even though it's not the best application of that particular tool, and the resulting job will be shoddy, inefficient, and lacking. Just as you can use logic to make sense of spirit, even though it's not the best application of that tool, and the resulting job will be shoddy, inefficient, and lacking.

There is a counterpart to logic: Heart.

Yin and Yang. Duality. That is the absolute.

Uriah wrote:

Logic is not absolute - Logic is a tool of perception, and not an all-powerful one.

There is much about the universe, and the human condition, that Logic fails to explain, and cannot account for.

I suspect that Schizo would make a distinction between the human perception of logic and the universal laws of Logic. Like the laws of Physics, the laws of Logic are inescapable facts about the world. But the human grasp of the logical structure of reality is imperfect, and the classical rules of Logic are only approximations of the ideal "forms" of Logic.

But in the above he says that Logic is conceptual, and that "The Laws of logic are not the product of the universe. Logic is not a process of the universe."

stretmediq wrote:

I agree with just about all of that but I think it would be better labeled an explanation rather than an argument.

Well, it's not my argument. So, I had to label it like the writer did.

How do you see it as an explanation?

Uriah wrote:

But in the above he says that Logic is conceptual, and that "The Laws of logic are not the product of the universe. Logic is not a process of the universe."

The way I understood this argument is that the laws of logic are discoveries of man instead of inventions and that is why logic is a good tool in our toolbox of truth. If we made up these laws and they are not universal then intelligent life on other planets would have different laws of logic. So, we would be illogical to them and they would be illogical to us. If that is so then the laws of logic are illogical and can not be a tool for understanding reality. If they are not absolute and universal then we have no reason to use them. We discovered these laws because the universe obeys them just like it obeys the laws of nature. In other words, the universe is logical.

The laws of logic transcend the universe because even if the universe didn't exist the laws still would. They still would exist because the universe is the effect of them and not the cause.

Only logical universes can exist because illogical realities are impossible. There doesn't exist a world were there is square circles. The laws of logic transcend all possible universes. They are more universal than the laws of nature because different laws of nature can exist in other universes but every universe would have the same laws of logic. So, the laws of logic are multi universal.

Since the laws of logic transcend the laws of nature they are supernatural or at least none material. In other words there isn't a material cause for them but instead they cause the material.

The laws of logic apply to minds. We can only conceptualize logical concepts. I'm incapable of comprehending a square circle. The best I can comprehend is a square with rounded corners instead of right angles. I can't comprehend it because the concept is logically impossible. All of reality exists in a way that can be comprehended by a mind. Why? Because there is an absolute, transcendent mind in existence and all of reality is a product of this mind.

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
Albert Einstein

Uriah wrote:

Logic is not absolute

I have to disagree. Logic has two aspects; induction and deduction. Just as we can only see one face of a coin at a time we can only see one aspect of logic at a time. But they can be joined.

I am a thinking being.
In order to think a being must exist.
Therefore I must exist.

What this shows is that consciousness displays both traits. It begins with the observation of one's own existence which is inductive. But that observation can be put in the form of a syllogism which is deductive. That suggests true logic is consciousness itself. What we call logic are really just rules that apply to just one aspect or another not both. So they can be manipulated in ways that appear to result in contradiction.

Basically mistaking true logic for the rules of logic is like mistaking a map of a highway for the highway itself.

Perhaps we are quibbling over what, exactly, the word 'absolute' means in this context.

Absolute most readily means, basically, perfect. Free from imperfection, immutable.

Logic is not perfect. Logic is only as effective as the mind that wields it, and there are no perfect minds. Human beings are imperfect, therefore our logic is not absolute.

Just because a logical argument can be concocted to prove or disprove any proposition one can imagine does not make it an absolute foundational aspect of the universe.
It's a template that mankind has devised to place upon the observable universe so that things are connected, quantified, and all that chaos begins to make a semblance of sense.

So when I'm arguing that logic is not absolute, that is where I'm coming from. Are you guys interpreting the statement differently, because it sounds like you are not using 'absolute' as 'perfect', but rather 'free from restriction', like "absolute freedom"? (which is an oxymoron, of course, but that would be an entirely separate debate lol)

The way I see it, logic is dependent on dualisms, however "the absolute" is non-dual in nature. So although logic or "logos" may be the basis of manifestation it is ultimately grounded in the formless unmanifest "absolute".

What I'm saying is true logic is logos or thought or awareness or self -consciousness. What we call the rules of logic are just imperfect descriptions of it and thus can be distorted.

stretmediq wrote:

What I'm saying is true logic is logos or thought or awareness or self -consciousness. What we call the rules of logic are just imperfect descriptions of it and thus can be distorted.

I can agree with that.

Yeah, I can dig on that as well. I've always had a soft spot for Stoicism. In fact, I was calling myself a Stoic for a long time - until I met Aaron, who converted me to Deism! lol

Anima, Animas, Corpus.

Interesting Thread.
Don't know where I stand. My mind's a whirling right now.

Uriah wrote:

Perhaps we are quibbling over what, exactly, the word 'absolute' means in this context.

Absolute most readily means, basically, perfect. Free from imperfection, immutable.

Logic is not perfect. Logic is only as effective as the mind that wields it, and there are no perfect minds. Human beings are imperfect, therefore our logic is not absolute.

Just because a logical argument can be concocted to prove or disprove any proposition one can imagine does not make it an absolute foundational aspect of the universe.
It's a template that mankind has devised to place upon the observable universe so that things are connected, quantified, and all that chaos begins to make a semblance of sense.

So when I'm arguing that logic is not absolute, that is where I'm coming from. Are you guys interpreting the statement differently, because it sounds like you are not using 'absolute' as 'perfect', but rather 'free from restriction', like "absolute freedom"? (which is an oxymoron, of course, but that would be an entirely separate debate lol)

But the guy pointed out in his argument that,"The laws of logic are absolute. Human beings' minds are not absolute. They differ. They disagree. Therefore, what is absolute to one person may or may not be absolute to another. Therefore, they are not the product of human minds." You're correct that our logic isn't perfect but if our minds were perfect than our logic would be perfect. What you're pointing out doesn't sound like a good reason to believe that logic isn't absolute. It sounds more like a reason to believe that people aren't perfectly logical. You're correct that human beings are imperfect, therefore our logic is not absolute but that doesn't mean that the laws of logic are not because if our logic was perfect than it would be obeying the laws of logic "perfectly".

I'm interpreting your statement that they are not absolute in the sense of them not being universal like the laws of nature are. The argument says to me that if there is a Volcan like creature out in the universe it would follow the same laws of logic as a Volcan like creature on a different planet or even in a different universe and therefore the laws of logic are discoveries and not inventions. When you say they are not absolute I interpret that to mean that you believe them to be inventions and therefore his argument is false.

If you believe that there could exist an object that only reflects blue light and also only reflects red light then you have an illogical belief. Is this belief only illogical to me or is it universally illogical?

Aaron wrote:

The way I see it, logic is dependent on dualisms, however "the absolute" is non-dual in nature. So although logic or "logos" may be the basis of manifestation it is ultimately grounded in the formless unmanifest "absolute".

I'm still confused when you bring up the manifest and unmanifest. I'm interested in your belief in them but have trouble comprehending the concept. Is the unmanifest everything that doesn't exist and the manifest everything that can possibly exist? Please explain.

Schizophretard wrote:

Aaron wrote:

The way I see it, logic is dependent on dualisms, however "the absolute" is non-dual in nature. So although logic or "logos" may be the basis of manifestation it is ultimately grounded in the formless unmanifest "absolute".

I'm still confused when you bring up the manifest and unmanifest. I'm interested in your belief in them but have trouble comprehending the concept. Is the unmanifest everything that doesn't exist and the manifest everything that can possibly exist? Please explain.

See this thread for my response...
https://panendeism.forumotion.com/general-panendeism-forum-f10/the-manifest-and-unmanifest-t340.htm

Schizophretard wrote:

Uriah wrote:

Perhaps we are quibbling over what, exactly, the word 'absolute' means in this context.

Absolute most readily means, basically, perfect. Free from imperfection, immutable.

Logic is not perfect. Logic is only as effective as the mind that wields it, and there are no perfect minds. Human beings are imperfect, therefore our logic is not absolute.

Just because a logical argument can be concocted to prove or disprove any proposition one can imagine does not make it an absolute foundational aspect of the universe.
It's a template that mankind has devised to place upon the observable universe so that things are connected, quantified, and all that chaos begins to make a semblance of sense.

So when I'm arguing that logic is not absolute, that is where I'm coming from. Are you guys interpreting the statement differently, because it sounds like you are not using 'absolute' as 'perfect', but rather 'free from restriction', like "absolute freedom"? (which is an oxymoron, of course, but that would be an entirely separate debate lol)

But the guy pointed out in his argument that,"The laws of logic are absolute. Human beings' minds are not absolute. They differ. They disagree. Therefore, what is absolute to one person may or may not be absolute to another. Therefore, they are not the product of human minds." You're correct that our logic isn't perfect but if our minds were perfect than our logic would be perfect. What you're pointing out doesn't sound like a good reason to believe that logic isn't absolute. It sounds more like a reason to believe that people aren't perfectly logical. You're correct that human beings are imperfect, therefore our logic is not absolute but that doesn't mean that the laws of logic are not because if our logic was perfect than it would be obeying the laws of logic "perfectly".

I'm interpreting your statement that they are not absolute in the sense of them not being universal like the laws of nature are. The argument says to me that if there is a Volcan like creature out in the universe it would follow the same laws of logic as a Volcan like creature on a different planet or even in a different universe and therefore the laws of logic are discoveries and not inventions. When you say they are not absolute I interpret that to mean that you believe them to be inventions and therefore his argument is false.

If you believe that there could exist an object that only reflects blue light and also only reflects red light then you have an illogical belief. Is this belief only illogical to me or is it universally illogical?

I suppose where I'm coming from is that logic a tool of consciousness - and even, to large extant, the unconscious. So a Volcon on the other side of the universe may well perceive the universe in the same manner as we do (though that's not a certainty) but the Volcon's logic would be just as imperfect and perceptually biased as our own.

Logic is just a tool we use, much like a hammer. Idiots who use hammers injure themselves. And one skillful with a hammer can build a beautiful mansion.

I agree with you that people use the tool of logic better or worse than others. What I disagree with is that the laws of logic are not absolute. It is because the laws of logic are absolute that makes it a usefully tool. If we could give it any rules we wanted then it wouldn't work as a tool at all. An idiot and a skillful person may use the same hammer and get different results. So, the different results have nothing to do with the hammer but how it is used. It is the same with logic. People getting different results using logic says nothing about rather or not the laws of logic are absolute. To show that they are not absolute, you have to show that they could be totally different laws and still be just as useful of a tool.

Even though the Volcans' logic would be imperfect like our own would they come up with completely different laws of logic? Could they come up with rules of logic that completely contradict our own?

The fact that the tool is dependent on an outside force proves it is not absolute.

Logic is just a way we look at things, and it's not even the only way available to us. It's just one way, effective for some, not effective for others.

The Universe itself doesn't even operate according to the principals of human logic, if it did it would make innate sense to us.

You, and the author of your quote above, seem to view logic as something physical, as if it actually exists. But it doesn't, it's all in our heads. And the fact that logic can be debated, argued, proven, disproved, etc... serves to show that it is not absolute, it is not perfect, it is not even universal.

There is no inherent logic in how a star collapses into itself forming a black hole, though mankind used the tool of logic to deduce how that process comes to pass. Logic allows us to build a super-collider so that we can explode atoms and witness the illogical workings of quantum mechanics and the absurd basic foundations of all existence.

If logic was absolute, it would be all we needed to make sense of, and come to peace with, our existence.

Schizophretard wrote:

Even though the Volcans' logic would be imperfect like our own would they come up with completely different laws of logic?

Perhaps.

Schizophretard wrote:

Could they come up with rules of logic that completely contradict our own?

Logically speaking, yes they could.