The Laws of Logic

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Are the laws of logic physical?

 

[scalyblue]

Are the laws of logic physical?

Clarify and quantify. The scope of your inquiry is unclear.

If you're intending to cherry pick answers until they lead to some sort of assertion, then just man up and make the assertion.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Clarify and quantify. The scope of your inquiry is unclear.

If you're intending to cherry pick answers until they lead to some sort of assertion, then just man up and make the assertion.

I can't make it anymore clear. Assuming you believe the laws of logic exist, are they physical? Are they made of matter?

 

[scalyblue]

Clarify and quantify. The scope of your inquiry is unclear.

If you're intending to cherry pick answers until they lead to some sort of assertion, then just man up and make the assertion.

I can't make it anymore clear. Assuming you believe the laws of logic exist, are they physical? Are they made of matter?

Actually, you can make "it" much more clear.

First of all, we don't assume, we presume.

Second, the last time I checked, "Laws of Logic" is a relatively vague term. Are you referring to the 'laws' of classical logic, the three axioms of which rational discourse is based upon? Or are you referring to something entirely different. Considering that your actions in this forum have, as far, been intellectually dishonest, I believe it's prudent to have definitions out and open.

Third, if you wish to be pedantic, since matter is just another form of energy, anything that anybody has ever thought could be considered to be matter, by the sheer existence of the patterns and neurons.

Fourth, my answer is irrelevant, because whether concepts can be argued to physically exist or not, without those three axioms it is not possible to conduct rational discourse, so whether they do or do not exist, we are obliged to behave as though they do.

As I already said, if you are trying to lead to an assertion, just man up and make the assertion.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Actually, you can make "it" much more clear.

First of all, we don't assume, we presume.

Second, the last time I checked, "Laws of Logic" is a relatively vague term. Are you referring to the 'laws' of classical logic, the three axioms of which rational discourse is based upon? Or are you referring to something entirely different. Considering that your actions in this forum have, as far, been intellectually dishonest, I believe it's prudent to have definitions out and open.

Third, if you wish to be pedantic, since matter is just another form of energy, anything that anybody has ever thought could be considered to be matter, by the sheer existence of the patterns and neurons.

Fourth, my answer is irrelevant, because whether concepts can be argued to physically exist or not, without those three axioms it is not possible to conduct rational discourse, so whether they do or do not exist, we are obliged to behave as though they do.

As I already said, if you are trying to lead to an assertion, just man up and make the assertion.

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

Are those laws of logic physical? I would also assume that you believe those laws of logic existed before man?

 

[Laurens]

Well I think that many of the laws of logic are derived from the laws of nature.

If we lived in a universe in which effect preceded cause then our laws of logic would reflect that.

 

[scalyblue]

Your questions are now showing their loaded nature. "Did the human conception of axioms of human thought exist before humans." As I see it, anybody who answers yes you will perceive as a concession to divinity, and anybody who answers no you will perceive as a concession to divinity. Either way, I don't see that you're actually seeking knowledge, this is just some sort of twisted opinion poll/game where no matter who answers what, you will win in your head.

As I already said, if you are trying to carrot-dangle and lead to an assertion, just man up and make the assertion already. You have some sort of "Gotcha" point that you're trying to put forth as soon as anybody gives an answer, so just make the point you're trying to make.

 

[australopithecus]

This reminds me of the moon thread Stripe made. Leading questions and cherry picking all round.

YYNJ if you have a point to make then make it.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I believe the laws of logic exist. I assumed everyone did too. If I'm wrong about that, just let me know. All I'm asking is if everyone here thinks the laws of logic are physical. Not too difficult a question. We shouldn't be afraid of where what we think might take us, right?

 

[australopithecus]

Define physical.

*edit*

Ah, missed that you already did.

Are they made of matter?

No, no more than mathematics is made of matter. Both are abstract concepts that describe reality.

 

[Dean]

YesYouNeedJesus

I believe the laws of logic exist. ["¦] I'm asking is if everyone here thinks the laws of logic are physical. Not too difficult a question. ["¦]

As scalyblue said, perhaps it would be helpful if you were to define what you mean by terms such as "physical". There is some sort of false dichotomy , in the tradition of convoluted theological argument, of course , between physical objects and non-physical "substances", if the phrase "non-physical substance" even makes any sense at all (I wonder what Hytegia would have to say about that....)

If by "are the laws of logical physical", you mean to ask "are the laws of logic physically manifested matter?", then no. Even if you subscribe to metaphysical naturalism (following the principle of parsimony), the laws of logic still cannot be said to be 'objects'. Logic is a conceptual abstraction on reality. An idea. And ideas are CONCEPTUAL. Not non-physical. But not a physical object either. Rather, logic , and the intricacies and subtleties thereof , are abstractions of the physical world, based on our observations of how the world works.

To call logic "physical" is a misnomer, and conceiving of logic as though it was something materially quantifiable (like objects), would be a fallacy of reification. But that doesn't make them in any way supernatural. They are metaphysical descriptions (as australopithecus stated) of the behaviour and functioning of external, physical reality. They also MUST be used in very strict and formalized ways (like e.g. mathematics), otherwise they mean nothing.

Next question.

 

[Prolescum]

Dean articulates my thoughts on this topic.

Punchline TBC.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

The laws of logic are not matter, but they can be said to be properties of matter in the way that mass and gravity are properties of matter. They don't exist as distinct sets of particles, but every particle above a quantum level must obey them. They are part of the definition of what "physical" is and thus transcend physical substance.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Are the laws of logic physical?

No, they are conceptual in nature, that much should be obvious. And this topic should be in philosophy not in Science and Mathematics.

 

[Squawk]

Anyone else see a presuppositionalist argument on the way? Calvinism mk2?

The "laws of logic", as I presume you consider them to be, are an abstraction akin to mathematics that enable the human brain to comprehend things. Ideas like A is A, etc. Discoveries from quantum mechanics would suggest that the "laws of logic" are not universally true, and so I'd suggest that i believe in them in the same way that I believe in maths. When properly constrained, they are true. They are not necessarily true in all instances.

If you wish to discuss philosophy further, we can look at axioms. Personally I prefer the two axiom approach. Reality exists and reality can be perceived. If you wish to extrapolate reason from those two and call it a third axiom, fine by me.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Ideas like A is A, etc. Discoveries from quantum mechanics would suggest that the "laws of logic" are not universally true

What exactly in quantum mechanics sugest that?
Sure it defies our traditional concepts of identity but I wouldn't go as far as claiming that it is against any laws of logic.

 

[Dean]

Ideas like A is A, etc. Discoveries from quantum mechanics would suggest that the "laws of logic" are not universally true

What exactly in quantum mechanics sugest that?
Sure it defies our traditional concepts of identity but I wouldn't go as far as claiming that it is against any laws of logic.

Quantum Mechanics at its root does indeed defy so-called "classical" (Aristotelian) logic, in its ability to demolish classical assumptions in mathematical logic, such as the rules of causation, and , even more so in the case of quantum theory , ill-defined concepts such as identity and simultaneity.

As for as the classical Aristotelian framework goes, all it states is that: 1. A ≡ A, 2. a situation could never arise in which A ≠ A.

Everything that is true of A (as it currently stands) can only be true of A. Fairly straight forward. Although, the formulation above isn't quite accurate, since all reflexive operations "uphold" this principle. It should actually be: A → A, otherwise it would simply be a tautology. But that's not too important.

Now as you pointed out, Quantum Theory doesn't obey these principles, since it allows for some nifty tricks, making it awkward to make testable predictions, since there isn't a singular frame of reference where one object (e.g. particle) can be stated to exist at any one moment. So perhaps Quantum Theory really DOES defy logic, at least as we've long understood it. You may recall, we've had this before: déjà  vu. But as I stated there, if our understanding of nature doesn't match our concepts of logic (e.g. identity), then we have to reform either our observations of reality, or our logic.

Since quantum-mechanical theories have gained a wealth of empirical evidence in recent times, the former seems implausible. And in which case, Aristotelian logics are most likely flawed, and need to be corrected to match with our observations, in this case of subatomic particle behaviour.

And it's certainly not just Quantum Theories that suffer from these apparent deformations of logic. There's also M-Theory, String-Theory, and many others with similar problems. Ultimately it's more a matter of meta-principle, and I feel that in Quantum Mechanics the real issue is the issue of sorting out which logical formulঠapply under which (constrained) circumstances. No-one in their right mind would attempt to claim that quantum theory "refutes logic", or anything to that effect. And if that's what it looks like, it just means that our classical theories break down, and we need to seriously consider reforming them.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Quantum Mechanics at its root does indeed defy so-called "classical" (Aristotelian) logic, in its ability to demolish classical assumptions in mathematical logic, such as the rules of causation, and , even more so in the case of quantum theory , ill-defined concepts such as identity and simultaneity.

As for as the classical Aristotelian framework goes, all it states is that: 1. A ≡ A, 2. a situation could never arise in which A ≠ A.

Everything that is true of A (as it currently stands) can only be true of A. Fairly straight forward. Although, the formulation above isn't quite accurate, since all reflexive operations "uphold" this principle. It should actually be: A → A, otherwise it would simply be a tautology. But that's not too important.

I find it quite perplexing that people complain about tautologies, as if it somehow makes an argument invalid or nonsensical. All true statements must fundamentally be reducible to a tautology otherwise you couldn't prove them to be true. If you are able to reduce something to a tautology then you are doing what it is supposed to.

Now as you pointed out, Quantum Theory doesn't obey these principles, since it allows for some nifty tricks, making it awkward to make testable predictions, since there isn't a singular frame of reference where one object (e.g. particle) can be stated to exist at any one moment. So perhaps Quantum Theory really DOES defy logic, at least as we've long understood it.

Well I don't find multi-location as defying the laws of logic. There is nothing in an object A having the property of being able to exist in multiple places at the same time that makes it not be A. Even objects that partially exist as density functions at a given time, there is nothing that makes them not being what they are. They are quirky and defy our trivial notion of objects that we usually tend to assume "that they must be and only be in one place at a given time, and that something somewhere else must be something else".
Even you have said this:

The problem rests first and foremost with what labels we all utilize to describe external, physical "realities" (in principle) and the theoretical (and mathematical) relations between them. When what we observe to be reality fails to match with what we predict from our logic, then presuming the symbol relations were algorithmically correct, then the logic (or mathematics) are still perfectly valid. What is incorrect is the select ascription of symbols and relations which purportedly correlate to the noumenal world. ("¦) We may very well continue to refine our understandings at these levels with more sophisticated, and sometimes even more elegant mathematics, but I suspect that the scope of metaphorical correlation of those maths to our everyday reality will continue to shrink.

Which I agree. And I would even stress the fact that the relation between logic and reality is circumstantial at best, if we find something that appears to defy logic it is not logic that it is wrong, but rather it was the "parallel logic relation that we ascribed to the entities we tried to model" were simply misattributed, and they are not the things we thought they were. If logic parallels do not apply to which you model then they can not violate the laws of logic, simply because they have never applied to begin with. To violate the laws of logic they must necessarily apply and then they must do what they are not supposed to, only then you can say "Yes they have indeed violated the laws of logic", but this is never the case. To say that it violates the laws of logic and that logic does not apply are completely antithetical, you can not have both, and you already know which one is it.
One of my contentions between establishing that which is "real" and that which is "logic", is that such gap can never be bridged without any assumption. It is fundamentally impossible to establish the "reality" of anything what so ever by "logic" alone, it just can't be done and anyone that thinks they can are just deluding themselves. This is why I do science and not philosophy.

To address the remaining point:

Since quantum-mechanical theories have gained a wealth of empirical evidence in recent times, the former seems implausible. And in which case, Aristotelian logics are most likely flawed, and need to be corrected to match with our observations, in this case of subatomic particle behaviour.

Aristotelian logic is not flawed nor need to be corrected to fit "observation", to suggest that they need to adapt to "observation" is incoherent, that is not what it is supposed to do, one has nothing to do with each other. And this is a very important detail that many people quite don't understand and I would go so far as to say that I haven't met a single person that hasn't made it. This is a problem because it tells me that most people quite don't understand what logic is, and many logical arguments fail precisely because of this.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I appreciate the replies. As a side note, everyone here needs to know that you can ask me a loaded question anytime you want. I'm not afraid of truth, so I have no reason to fear a loaded question. Ask on!

The laws of logic are not physical in any way shape or form. My big picture belief is that a naturalist can, in no way, account for something like the laws of logic in their worldview. Scalyblue hinted that the laws of logic might exist on our brains, but that is absolutely false. We would have no reason to think that the laws of logic are true if they're simply chemical reactions. And if they were chemical reactions, then they're not laws and they are not universal; they wouldn't extend beyond our brains. We couldn't argue that the laws of logic apply on Mars, since no one's brain is on Mars. If the laws of logic are just electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then they would differ from person to person.

As to the idea that the laws of logic are simply a description, that's also not the case. They are conceptual in nature and don't describe aspects of the universe. They are conceptual in nature, as some have stated.

The laws of logic pose a serious problem for a materialistic atheist. They exist, but they're not made of matter. Everyone here seems to agree they are not physical, and realize it or not, you have admitted that a non-physical realm exists. And not only does a non-physical realm exist, it is an authority over the physical realm. The physical realm is subject to the non-physical laws of logic.

There are at least 3 preconditions of intelligibility, and the laws of logic are one of them. I don't believe the atheist can account for these things and that's a big reason I'm a theist.

 

[scalyblue]

I appreciate the replies. As a side note, everyone here needs to know that you can ask me a loaded question anytime you want. I'm not afraid of truth, so I have no reason to fear a loaded question. Ask on!

The laws of logic are not physical in any way shape or form. My big picture belief is that a naturalist can, in no way, account for something like the laws of logic in their worldview. Scalyblue hinted that the laws of logic might exist on our brains, but that is absolutely false. We would have no reason to think that the laws of logic are true if they're simply chemical reactions. And if they were chemical reactions, then they're not laws and they are not universal; they wouldn't extend beyond our brains. We couldn't argue that the laws of logic apply on Mars, since no one's brain is on Mars. If the laws of logic are just electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then they would differ from person to person.

As to the idea that the laws of logic are simply a description, that's also not the case. They are conceptual in nature and don't describe aspects of the universe. They are conceptual in nature, as some have stated.

The laws of logic pose a serious problem for a materialistic atheist. They exist, but they're not made of matter. Everyone here seems to agree they are not physical, and realize it or not, you have admitted that a non-physical realm exists. And not only does a non-physical realm exist, it is an authority over the physical realm. The physical realm is subject to the non-physical laws of logic.

There are at least 3 preconditions of intelligibility, and the laws of logic are one of them. I don't believe the atheist can account for these things and that's a big reason I'm a theist.

Well at least it only took you five posts of waffling to make your assertions.

I believe your position can be summed up as "Axioms are not tangible, therefore goddidit."

An axiom can be seen much like mathematics. It doesn't exist as a material thing, and indeed it is a concept invented by humans, a cognitive tool invented so that our head meat may perceive, explain, and make predictions based on observations.

If every human were to be wiped out, so would mathematics, and so would the axioms of logical discourse. These concepts may come to exist again with the advent of intelligence that is alien to us, not necessarily in the same way or the same format, but the same conclusions would be reached given the same input criteria and the same cognitive perception.

Why do you think this gap in your understanding provides a serious problem for a "Materialistic athiest" What do you believe a "Materialistic athiest" is? Would you care to define it?

Do you believe that the god you believe in fills this gap in your understanding with anything productive?

What if, for everything you ascribed to the divnity of your god and this "non physical" world you posit, instead you said "I'm afraid I don't have enough information to know that answer, perhaps I should obtain more information."

Is this blatant ignorance how you wish to portray your religion and your god? I mean, since you have presented yourself as a narrow-minded, narcissistic, intellectually dishonest, cherry picking toadie to a man who has no virtue aside from furnishing you with a paycheck, is this the image that your bible says that your god created you in? Doesn't that create a serious problem for your beliefs?

Forgive me, I digress.