Jot Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 UPB is a moral framework that is based on the laws of logic. There are many systems of logic, some of which are incompatible with each other. Classical logic has these tenants: Law of excluded middle and double negative elimination Law of noncontradiction, and the principle of explosion Monotonicity of entailment and idempotency of entailment Commutativity of conjunction De Morgan duality: every logical operator is dual to another Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whosenegation is also true. Such statements are called "true contradictions", dialetheia, or nondualisms. UPB seems to only be valid under classical, bivalent models of logic. How do we know that systems of logic such as Dialetheism are invalid forms of reasoning? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 UPB is a moral framework that is based on the laws of logic. There are many systems of logic, some of which are incompatible with each other. Classical logic has these tenants: Law of excluded middle and double negative elimination Law of noncontradiction, and the principle of explosion Monotonicity of entailment and idempotency of entailment Commutativity of conjunction De Morgan duality: every logical operator is dual to another Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whosenegation is also true. Such statements are called "true contradictions", dialetheia, or nondualisms. UPB seems to only be valid under classical, bivalent models of logic. How do we know that systems of logic such as Dialetheism are invalid forms of reasoning? Stef very carefully builds up from first principles, did you find some of those first principles to be in error? In particular is this statement from UPB: Logic, science and truth, then, are impossible in the absence of consistency. Fundamentally, the laws of logic are derived from the behaviour of matter and energy, at least at the perceptual level. If I tell you to throw a ball both up and down at the same time, I am asking for the impossible, which you can easily test by attempting to fulfill my request. If I tell you to plough both the north field and the south field simultaneously, you will be unable to comply. If I demand that you turn a rose into a donkey, my demand will never be met. Perceptual reality is consistent and objective – and it is from this consistency and objectivity that we derive the laws of logic. Our statements about reality can only accurately represent reality as a direct result of this consistency and objectivity. This, any statement that is impossible true and false simultaneously is invalid. Does that answer your underlying concern? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeardslastcall Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 If your logic says the cat is both alive and dead we're off to a bad start. If your logic says something is both moral and immoral then where can you go from there? If you give a contradictory statement as a truth you're not really saying anything. The point of logic is to determine a position. If you're stuck in some contradictory dualism you're stuck in a non-position and have removed the use and point of logic, which is to get some resolution on an issue. If someone is both guilty and not-guilty can you both kill and not-kill them? Reality denies contradictions and any logic that provides contradictions is taking an invalid look on reality and will be ultimately rejected by reality. The beauty of reality is that it has no fundamental contradictions. Adherence to and respect for reality is how you capture sanity and move forward with life. How do you consider contradictions and dualisms to be reasoning if they provide no reason? Definition of "reason" from Google:Define:reason = 1. a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. 2. the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic 3. think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jot Posted February 15, 2016 Author Share Posted February 15, 2016 If there is a thing that Stefan never really persuaded me into accepting is his take on epistemology. Fundamentally, the laws of logic are derived from the behaviour of matter and energy, at least at the perceptual level. This is one of the statements that confuses me the most. To me it doesn't make sense that the laws of logic should be derived from the behavior of matter and energy...the way I understand logic is that you could be able to create logical systems without any knowledge of the real world. Also, isn't logic supposed to apply to every scale in order to be universal? If at a quantum level logic doesn't apply, doesn't this mean it is invalid? Suppose I develop a math system that applies to big number operations but it does not work on small number operations...wouldn't this mean my math system is flawed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeardslastcall Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Also, isn't logic supposed to apply to every scale in order to be universal? If at a quantum level logic doesn't apply, doesn't this mean it is invalid? Suppose I develop a math system that applies to big number operations but it does not work on small number operations...wouldn't this mean my math system is flawed? Logic does apply to all levels. Different levels have different levels of generalization as to what is going on and how these events are described. Planets going around stars is fairly simple and straightforward in many ways. The planet loops around the Sun for millions or billions of years in a fairly consistent fashion following some general rules. We can predict this behavior pretty accurately. However if you look down at what's going on on the planet Earth it suddenly looks very weird and odd and to obey a whole other rule of physics and to act in a very strange and unpredictable way. The simple equations describing the motion of stars won't describe a complex planetary ecosystem. Everything on Earth is still subject to gravity and other forces of physics, but from the larger scale it seems very odd and to obey a different set of rules. A rocket flying off the planet would seem to come out of nowhere and make no sense if all you can see are planets and stars. With the quantum world we're looking down at a scale that moves super fast and is beyond our vision capabilities. Trying to understand what is going on in the quantum world seems strange, but it follows logic and physics with perfect consistency. When we are unable to see at these lower resolutions and scales however we're forced to use statistics and probabilities to guess how things will behave because we can't see and predict at the same scale and pace of the quantum world. I would agree the quote is a little confusing. I'd replace the word 'logic' with 'physics' and that would fit better to me. Physics are a way of describing reality and logic is a means towards assessing the physics of the world. We use our senses to validate or reject our logic, which leads us to developing principles of physics to help us in describing the rules of reality. With that said, it helps clarify the statement a little in that the behavior of matter and energy as perceived can help us show us when we're using flawed logic because it will lead us to an incorrect conclusion about the workings of reality. Reality, by being consistent, is constantly reaffirming logic by being consistent, which is required for the use of logic. Logic is only useful in a consistent universe, because otherwise you get into the problem of contradictions where logic is useless because you can derive no conclusions from an insane or contradictory universe. Note: I have one post that hasn't shown up yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 If there is a thing that Stefan never really persuaded me into accepting is his take on epistemology. This is one of the statements that confuses me the most. To me it doesn't make sense that the laws of logic should be derived from the behavior of matter and energy...the way I understand logic is that you could be able to create logical systems without any knowledge of the real world. Also, isn't logic supposed to apply to every scale in order to be universal? If at a quantum level logic doesn't apply, doesn't this mean it is invalid? Suppose I develop a math system that applies to big number operations but it does not work on small number operations...wouldn't this mean my math system is flawed? What I draw from this is that if a system of logic comes to a conclusion that is physically impossible, there's either a problem with the premises, an error in operations, or a problem with the logical system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Ed Moran Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 I think people make a mistake sometimes and confuse logic with philosophy. Philosophy is empirical; it deals with events in reality. Logic deals with events in the mind. I think for philosophy to be possible we need logic. Just like for science to be possible we need logic, and philosophy. Would you bring this form of argument up against science? It would be just as erroneous to bring this argument up against philosophy. And just to be clear, that is where your post becomes misleading, because you are bringing this up with regard to UPB as if it is relevant, but you didn't actually make the case: "it seems like UPB[...]" I hope I made that more clear to you regarding the difference between ethics and logic, and how a valid criticism of UPB would not include phrases like "it seems like" if we're going to maintain the rigor that is absolutely necessary for the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRobin Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 1) How do we know that systems of logic such as Dialetheism are invalid forms of reasoning? 2 )To me it doesn't make sense that the laws of logic should be derived from the behavior of matter and energy...the way I understand logic is that you could be able to create logical systems without any knowledge of the real world. 3) Also, isn't logic supposed to apply to every scale in order to be universal? If at a quantum level logic doesn't apply, doesn't this mean it is invalid? Suppose I develop a math system that applies to big number operations but it does not work on small number operations...wouldn't this mean my math system is flawed? Fro 1) The problem with any system of logic that has axioms like true and non-true being both valid is that there's no way then to proof or disproof any validity or truth value as a result (including the validity of the very system itself) 2) Well, yes and no, I think. Logic in and of itself only deals with concepts and ideas and allows you to create new concepts that are not necessarily tied to any empirical reality. However in order to have a foundation you need a definition of what those ideas and concepts mean and if you don't tie it to something empirical at some point then all definitions will either be left incomplete or end up being circular. (I think a mathematician proofed something similar a few decades ago, but I can't remember his name unfortunately) 3) Here, again, I think, logic only applies to ideas and our ideas about quantum level processes must be as logically valid as those ideas about macro level processes. Also, (just in case) don't confuse the fact that QM stuff is "weird" compared to macro stuff with it not being able to be expressed logically. Any model that describes these processes are as logically valid as any other scientific model that describes stuff like gravity or thermodynamics. Also yes, such a math system would be invalid, I think (unless there's a mathematical reason/proof you can show for why it won't work for different scales of number, in which case, you've used logic to proof how it's logically valid anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Metric Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Stefan published his theory a long time ago. Perhaps you should consult his current opinions on epistemology. My theory of logic is this: logic is a system of transcendent, abstract, non-conceptual rules that apply to everything and nothing. The validity for any logical absolute or any logical proposition is its axiomatic status. An axiom is that which is coherent, concise, and impervious to critique. The Law of Identity is an axiom because there is no way one can argue against it without invoking the Law of Identity Realist: A is A Nihilist: No it's not! Realist: Ah so you agreeing with me! (the realist is not treating the nihilist's objection (A) as an objection (A)) The Law of Non-Contradiction is a logical extension of the law of identity. If the law of identity is axiomatic then reality must have a definite nature. That which has a definite nature cannot be contradictory (lack an identity) The Law of the Excluded Middle follows from the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity and the axiom that Existence Exists. Existence Exists is an axiom because of the fact we have subjective experience at all. Sensation implies existence and all arguments against the axiom presuppose that the listener exists in a reality that exists. "Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously." is at best a half-truth. The full version of the Law of Non-Contradiction is Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. So if two statements are true in two completely different senses that would not be a violation of the 2nd law. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuffy_Meigs Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 ...the way I understand logic is that you could be able to create logical systems without any knowledge of the real world. I think logic does require knowledge of the real world or else we end up with something akin to religion where we just speculate the existence of impossible things in some convenient other reality. Take the square circle for example. We rightly reject it as illogical but we may imagine its existence. In the same way that we can draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere where the angles add up to 270 degrees, we could postulate a universe with such a warped non-Euclidean "surface" that a square circle could indeed exist. But that is not what we mean by logic unless we are trying to justify nihilism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jot Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 I think logic does require knowledge of the real world or else we end up with something akin to religion where we just speculate the existence of impossible things in some convenient other reality. Take the square circle for example. We rightly reject it as illogical but we may imagine its existence. In the same way that we can draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere where the angles add up to 270 degrees, we could postulate a universe with such a warped non-Euclidean "surface" that a square circle could indeed exist. But that is not what we mean by logic unless we are trying to justify nihilism. Are you sure you can imagine its existence? So if you can see it in your mind's eye what prevents you from drawing it on a paper and show it to us? Stefan published his theory a long time ago. Perhaps you should consult his current opinions on epistemology. My theory of logic is this: logic is a system of transcendent, abstract, non-conceptual rules that apply to everything and nothing. The validity for any logical absolute or any logical proposition is its axiomatic status. An axiom is that which is coherent, concise, and impervious to critique. The Law of Identity is an axiom because there is no way one can argue against it without invoking the Law of Identity Realist: A is A Nihilist: No it's not! Realist: Ah so you agreeing with me! (the realist is not treating the nihilist's objection (A) as an objection (A)) The Law of Non-Contradiction is a logical extension of the law of identity. If the law of identity is axiomatic then reality must have a definite nature. That which has a definite nature cannot be contradictory (lack an identity) The Law of the Excluded Middle follows from the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity and the axiom that Existence Exists. Existence Exists is an axiom because of the fact we have subjective experience at all. Sensation implies existence and all arguments against the axiom presuppose that the listener exists in a reality that exists. "Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously." is at best a half-truth. The full version of the Law of Non-Contradiction is Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. So if two statements are true in two completely different senses that would not be a violation of the 2nd law. What about the supposed logical paradoxes that people have been trying to solve for hundreds and thousands of years? Can you solve all of them with that system of logic of yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Metric Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 What logical paradoxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 UPB is a moral framework that is based on the laws of logic. There are many systems of logic, some of which are incompatible with each other. Classical logic has these tenants: Law of excluded middle and double negative elimination Law of noncontradiction, and the principle of explosion Monotonicity of entailment and idempotency of entailment Commutativity of conjunction De Morgan duality: every logical operator is dual to another Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whosenegation is also true. Such statements are called "true contradictions", dialetheia, or nondualisms. UPB seems to only be valid under classical, bivalent models of logic. How do we know that systems of logic such as Dialetheism are invalid forms of reasoning? What system of logic are you using to make this argument? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuffy_Meigs Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 If there is a thing that Stefan never really persuaded me into accepting is his take on epistemology. This is one of the statements that confuses me the most. To me it doesn't make sense that the laws of logic should be derived from the behavior of matter and energy...the way I understand logic is that you could be able to create logical systems without any knowledge of the real world. My previous example of the square circle maybe wasn't the best although I think it could be portrayed, at least mathematically. Let me try another. Presumably we agree that the statement "2+2=5" does not require empirical verification as it has already failed the first test, that of logic. However we can easily portray a universe (in a video or cartoon) where you take 2 somethings, add them to two more somethings and a fifth spontaneously pops into existence. Therefore in the absence of any knowledge of physical reality, have we not also lost any ability to apply logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sb23rd Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 What do you mean by "... in the absence of any knowledge of physical reality..."? Logically or through inference your very existence and capacity for thought like posting here (action to achieve goal) presupposes reality. Absence of knowledge of physical reality I think is a contradiction in terms. Logic dictates that you cannot survive without eating or drinking for an extended period of time. As far as I understand logic is essentially the law of identity. Your or my subjective (watching the sun set) identification of the objective physical world (the sun sets) which is matter and energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cantharis Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Logic is not merely the law of identity. It is a method of creating a non-contradictory argument. It is not empirical and it has nothing to do with the outside world in a sense that you do not need to know whether a Gazillio exists to be able to say: P1: All mammals look cute P2: A Gazillio is a mammal C: A Gazillio looks cute This is a valid argument, meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises, it is not sound, meaning, it does not confirm to the empirical reality. But formal logic does not care whether parts of the argument are empirically true or not, you could say P1: All humans are three-headed P2: Socrates is a human C: Socrates is three-headed and it would still be valid, and formal logic stops there. What Stef means when he says Fundamentally, the laws of logic are derived from the behaviour of matter and energy, at least at the perceptual level. is what Ayn Rand, inspired by Aristotle put it this way: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." That is to say the laws of logic, the law of non-contradiction, identity (and excluded middle) are aligned with the behavior of all matter and energy of the universe, the principles of aristotelian logic apply to the world around us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Metric Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 That is to say the laws of logic, the law of non-contradiction, identity (and excluded middle) are aligned with the behavior of all matter and energy of the universe, the principles of aristotelian logic apply to the world around us. You cannot use inductive reasoning to come to absolute truth. Only probable truths. So either Aristotle believes the logical "laws" are merely probable rather than absolute or the laws of logic are not derived from observation at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cantharis Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I did not say the laws of logic are derived from observation, I said the laws of logic are the same laws that guide the behavior of matter and energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Metric Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I also remember you quoting Stefan and saying something in response to what he said. "Fundamentally, the laws of logic are derived from the behavior of matter and energy, at least at the perceptual level." Aligned with =/= derived from. Two completely different things. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts