The Argument from the Laws of Logic

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.

Uriah wrote:

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.

Ok, as an example can you make up your own version of the laws of logic?

Schizophretard wrote:

Uriah wrote:

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.

Ok, as an example can you make up your own version of the laws of logic?

I'm not a Volcan

However, there are humans - cultures - who view reality in a decidedly illogical way, and it's no impediment to their biological success.


The laws of physics are not Logic. So surely the Volcan would look at the same physical universe we do, but we have no reason to necessarily assume that this being would invoke the same philosophical/psychological modality to make sense of the same universe.

Logic is just one way of looking at reality, not the only way. Therefore it is not absolute.

Uriah wrote:

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:

Schizophretard wrote:

Uriah wrote:

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.

Ok, as an example can you make up your own version of the laws of logic?

I'm not a Volcan

However, there are humans - cultures - who view reality in a decidedly illogical way, and it's no impediment to their biological success.


The laws of physics are not Logic. So surely the Volcan would look at the same physical universe we do, but we have no reason to necessarily assume that this being would invoke the same philosophical/psychological modality to make sense of the same universe.

Logic is just one way of looking at reality, not the only way. Therefore it is not absolute.

Why must logic be the only way to look at reality to be absolute?

Uriah wrote:

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

Proof: The famous Double Slit experiment in Quantum physics.

I've been thinking about this and I have to say we are going to have to agree to disagree on this example. Basically because it assumes a materialistic point of view and is therefore a circular argument.

If you assume a material particle going through two slits at once (arbitrarily labeled "A" "not A") you would have a real problem arguing the world is logical. But if you assume it is idealistic there is no problem at all. All the experiment would be doing in that case is redistributing the probabilities of where the wave will collapse.

Mathematically light passing through two slits would be similar to the way some terms in a quadratic equation would cancel out when factored. So you would naturally get a wave distribution pattern because while some probabilities are increased others are reduced to zero. On the other hand light going through just one slit would resemble a simple linear equation so you would see particle distribution patterns.

Quantum mechanics only seems weird to me if I think of it materialistically but if I think of it idealistically it makes perfect sense because the mathematics that describe it are logically consistent and in idealism the world is mathematics- manifest.

stretmediq wrote:

Uriah wrote:

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

Proof: The famous Double Slit experiment in Quantum physics.

I've been thinking about this and I have to say we are going to have to agree to disagree on this example. Basically because it assumes a materialistic point of view and is therefore a circular argument.

If you assume a material particle going through two slits at once (arbitrarily labeled "A" "not A") you would have a real problem arguing the world is logical. But if you assume it is idealistic there is no problem at all. All the experiment would be doing in that case is redistributing the probabilities of where the wave will collapse.

Mathematically light passing through two slits would be similar to the way some terms in a quadratic equation would cancel out when factored. So you would naturally get a wave distribution pattern because while some probabilities are increased others are reduced to zero. On the other hand light going through just one slit would resemble a simple linear equation so you would see particle distribution patterns.

Quantum mechanics only seems weird to me if I think of it materialistically but if I think of it idealistically it makes perfect sense because the mathematics that describe it are logically consistent and in idealism the world is mathematics- manifest.

Do you think that if it was called the argument from the laws of mathematics instead of the argument from the laws of logic it would work just as well?

Schizophretard wrote:

Do you think that if it was called the argument from the laws of mathematics instead of the argument from the laws of logic it would work just as well?

Yes. As Shakespeare said, "What's in a name?"

stretmediq wrote:

Quantum mechanics only seems weird to me if I think of it materialistically but if I think of it idealistically it makes perfect sense because the mathematics that describe it are logically consistent and in idealism the world is mathematics- manifest.

That is also the conclusion I came to. Either the world was absurd on the quantum level, or my materialistic worldview was incomplete. After I began to consider Ideality (metaphysics) as an integral component of ultimate Reality, the "logic" of quantum level and cosmic level physics began to make sense.

My personal logic was inconsistent with Nature's Logic, until I added Mind to Matter, yielding a wholistic picture of the world. I still don't understand all the details, but the big picture is beginning to take shape.

On another forum, when I discuss scientific topics from the perspective of this "new logic", I am accused of bringing magic and metaphysics into science. The metaphysics I will own up to, but it's not magic if it's real.

stretmediq wrote:

Uriah wrote:

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

Proof: The famous Double Slit experiment in Quantum physics.

I've been thinking about this and I have to say we are going to have to agree to disagree on this example. Basically because it assumes a materialistic point of view and is therefore a circular argument.

If you assume a material particle going through two slits at once (arbitrarily labeled "A" "not A") you would have a real problem arguing the world is logical. But if you assume it is idealistic there is no problem at all. All the experiment would be doing in that case is redistributing the probabilities of where the wave will collapse.

Mathematically light passing through two slits would be similar to the way some terms in a quadratic equation would cancel out when factored. So you would naturally get a wave distribution pattern because while some probabilities are increased others are reduced to zero. On the other hand light going through just one slit would resemble a simple linear equation so you would see particle distribution patterns.

Quantum mechanics only seems weird to me if I think of it materialistically but if I think of it idealistically it makes perfect sense because the mathematics that describe it are logically consistent and in idealism the world is mathematics- manifest.

Talk about circular logic.

The simple fact is that a photon of light is both a wave and a particle, and when observed in the Double Slit Experiment it is, essentially, in two places at once, and both a particle and a wave at the same time. Therefore, it is not logical.

The way we humans choose to perceive this state of existence means absolutely nothing about the state of existence itself. It is what it is: Beyond our perception.


The truth remains that the entire human condition is clouded within absurdity and meaninglessness, and one needs a certain amount of illogical acceptance to merely make peace with it all. Logic will not explain all the material movements of the universe, it simply cannot do so. There is, was, and always will be an integral, constituent, part of the human condition that requires faith, and acceptance of human ignorance, to fully integrate into our perceptual, experiential, universe. Therefore logic is not absolute.

Uriah wrote:

The simple fact is that a photon of light is both a wave and a particle, and when observed in the Double Slit Experiment it is, essentially, in two places at once, and both a particle and a wave at the same time. Therefore, it is not logical.

That would be true if there was a "particle" going through both slits. But I'm not convinced there is a "particle" going through the slits at all. I think its just waves of chance. In that case it is perfectly logical because all the experimenter is doing is redistributing probabilities which still obey the rules which describe them.

If you look at it from a purely mathematical point of view it is like rolling a pair of dice. While they are in motion the dice are analogous to a wave function. But when they come to rest they are analogous to a particle. From what I've read about quantum mechanics over the years I have pretty much come to the conclusion energy is the same. Sometimes it takes on the form of a wave, sometimes a particle. Not both at once.

When it is in its wave state energy can go through two or more slits at once because it is not focused. That is there is not a particle going through the slits and interfering with itself but instead it is energy in the form of mathematical probability waves which are interacting. Which is exactly what you should expect if the world is logical.

Likewise when the wave collapses, which it must do in order to focus its energy as is required by the photo-electric effect, it "becomes" a particle. Also exactly what you would expect if the world is logical.

Therefore I have no reason to think energy can be a wave and a particle at the same time especially since I have yet to see any example of it exhibiting both characteristics at once.

Even when a light source is calibrated in order to emit only enough energy to create one photon at a time there is no point in the experiment where both traits are seen simultaneously in individual events. When it goes through the interferometer the energy acts purely as a wave but when it hits the detector it will collapse somewhere on it and appear as a point of light. Over time many photons will collapse on the screen creating a speckled wave distribution pattern. So you can see both aspects as a result of many interactions just as many throws of the dice will produce a probability pattern which reflects the individual chances of all possible outcomes. But the energy in a single event never shows both properties at the same time any more than water presents as solid ice and liquid at the same time. Once more exactly what you should expect to see if the world is logical.

The problem seems to arise when it is looked at from a materialistic point of view. But when looked at from an idealistic point of view there is no problem. Everything behaves exactly as you would expect if the world is fundamentally mathematical in nature. Which is why quantum mechanics has been so successful in its predictions in describing the world. A feat that would be unlikely if the world is not logical.

I cannot prove idealism is correct but because it suffers from none of the problems materialism does and presents a perfectly logical explanation that is completely consistent with the observed phenomena I must conclude it is most probably correct.

Yes, and not to beat a dead horse, but this goes back to the idea of a "Logos" or (capital R) "Reason" as one of the grounds for existence as we experience it.

Aaron wrote:

Yes, and not to beat a dead horse, but this goes back to the idea of a "Logos" or (capital R) "Reason" as one of the grounds for existence as we experience it.

Exactly. I think some people get the "rules" of logic mixed up with logic itself and that can cause confusion. But just as a map is not a road rules are not logic.