Logic is not the foundation of the Universe

[Donnadogsoth]

No logical system can explain all phenomena.  Whatever stage of knowledge we have, there will be things which our current logical system cannot explain.

Logic is derived from the principle of identity or A=A.  This is a valid principle, but is useless without other principles.  Imagine the universe governed solely by the principle of identity.  It would have an identity, and not be not-itself, but what of it?  What reason would purely logical universe have for phenomena?  Why should metal act rigid when cold, or raindrops reflect light to form rainbows, or, for that matter, why should consciousness exist?  Logic can explain none of this, and is therefore incomplete.

What we face, therefore, is that logical systems should be thought of as I term them "logic grids".  A logic grid is an axiomatic system explaining phenomena.  When encountering the activity of a principle outside of its purview, a paradox appears.  Either the paradox is ignored or hidden, or it is resolved through the introduction of a new creative hypothesis, a non-logical hypothesis about how the universe works in terms of this imagined new principle, which is tested by appropriate empirical experiment and if successful leads to a new principle.  This new principle joins the others known hitherto.  The old logic grid is broken, and replaced by a newly built-up one incorporating the new principle.

So, on the grounds that the world would have no identity other than mere glassy Existence, and on the grounds that the world is discovered through non-logical means, the principle of identity cannot be the foundational principal of the universe.  It, like the principle of sufficient reason, or of gravitation, is one principle of many which has been created and employed by the Origin or God the Creator, in creating the universe.

That is, the Origin transcends all principles, is the origin of all principles, just as it is the origin of all archetypes, monads, and material things.  The Origin is neither logical nor illogical but precedes both.  Its identity is slippery while remaining concrete.  It is paradoxical yet transcends paradox.  As we are made in its image, we find that in a sense, we are the Origin, that our minds operate in the same or similar fashion to the Origin's mind, and thus we are not logical ultimately but a-logical and creative, capable of discovering new principles about the mind and the universe, thus altering both.

[Mole]

If I understand correctly, you seem to be suggesting that logic is incomplete so what we need is a set of axioms or 'logic grid' to explain the world and when something contradicts it we need to replace these axioms through a creative, non-logical process.

I think it's true that fundamentally we are not logic ran machines. When we are born we don't know any logic. We are a blank slate with regards to conception. We do, however, have a human nature. This human nature is empiricism. When we are born we find truth via empiricism. We don't need a logical explanation as to why we ought to be empirical because we just are. Just like an ant is conscious and has precepts for its colony and for gathering, we too have precepts, but for empiricism. No explanation is required. No explanation is possible. This seems to me to be the non-logical faculty you are alluding to. If one is to suggest that there is no logical reason to be empirical, he is already being empirical so it's actually impossible to argue against it. One cannot prove it or deny it for logic itself relies upon empiricism. One may only decay if he wishes not to be a man.

Since logic is the rules that constitute argumentation, and argumentation presupposes empiricism, logic too must presuppose empiricism. Since empiricism is a biological precept, logic must be a construct. It does not exist in reality. It is merely a conception.

That being said, it does seem to be the case that the very start of empiricism seems to be that A is A. That the concept of A is A does not exist in reality, but that reality exists in reality. That existence exists. For if we don't at least admit that then nothing is knowable since nothing can be determined as existing. So even though the precept of empiricism is non-logical, everything that we can know is known logically. So it's an issue if we say that logic is incomplete and we have to have another way of discerning what's true.

I would not agree that simply because logic does not explain the physical universe, then logic is incomplete for our understanding of it. As I have said, logic is a concept. It does not exist in reality. We should no expect it to. Logic is man's own coding. It is the rules that constitute argumentation. What logic can do, however, is give us a means of discovering the universe. Once we know A is A, it is only a matter of observation to know what is not A, what is B, etc. You may argue that observations can't be trusted, but what we observe is exactly the same as empiricism. It's the same thing. And by arguing against it, you are affirming it. It's just a fact that we have to accept that our nature is to be observers, to be empirical, and there's no platonic reason for it, it just is as we are born and we have no control over it because it created us. It's our master. We can either choose to use it or lose it but we can't change it.

Basically to conclude what I'm trying to say is that logic is a result of a biological construct and doesn't exist in reality but it makes it possible to understand reality, and since it makes it possible to understand reality, there is no other way of deriving another kind of logic from reality without using the logic we already have. Finding truth is a matter of applying logic to our observations. Logic itself isn't a truth because it's what actually defines truth from non-truth. Logic itself not having any truth, it's just a given as a biological construct that we have no control of as biological animals. And when I said logic 'defines' truth, I don't mean define as we conventionally understand 'definition' as some sentence. That is a misunderstanding. In fact, definitions are not the truth. The truth is a concept in our minds that is not understood as language. A concept is a concept. Not a sentence. Not an image. A sentence itself is just another concept. When I say define I don't mean some written rules in our head but just the concepts as they are, concepts. Literally neurons in our brain interacting in a particular way to give rise to empiricism and conceptualisation. Kant and the people in the philosophy of language school of thought make that mistake by thinking that sentences are truths.

[Donnadogsoth]

I think we largely agree.

If I understand correctly, you seem to be suggesting that logic is incomplete so what we need is a set of axioms or 'logic grid' to explain the world and when something contradicts it we need to replace these axioms through a creative, non-logical process.

Yes, our understanding of the physical world is based on our cache of principles, plus associated axioms, which together form a “lattice” or “grid” constituting our “state of scientific understanding," to be written up in classroom textbooks. This understanding is necessarily incomplete, and the introduction of an ontological paradox into the grid forces either a wilful ignorance to isolate the paradox, or else it triggers empirical investigation leading to work through it through hypothesis and proof-of-principle experiment to discover a new universal physical principle. At this point the grid shatters and a new grid must be built from the newly increased cache of principle.

Since logic is the rules that constitute argumentation, and argumentation presupposes empiricism, logic too must presuppose empiricism. Since empiricism is a biological precept, logic must be a construct. It does not exist in reality. It is merely a conception.

Excellent. I agree.

When you say, “logic is a result of a biological construct,” however, that's dangerous territory, for it suggests that we are biologically programmed to have a logic, not the logic. Or, at least, it doesn't explain where having the logic came from and thus makes logic itself suspect. If we were to agree that human mentation is made in the image of God and therefore intended to have the logic, I would agree that the logic we have (again, the logic) is the result of a biological construct.

Logic is an inevitable part of the process of discovery of truth, for without the principle of identity (A=A) how could we establish any truth as being true?

To deny empiricism is to imagine the Universe can be “solved” using pure mathematics. This creates a deterministic scientific world similar to the political-economic world of Marxism, which claimed to have “solved” history in terms of its deterministic dialectical materialism.

I agree logic is a concept that we apply to being. Would you agree that logic is a reflection of the coherence of being? The Universe as exists coherently and therefore is vulnerable to logic?

[Boss]

I am unsure what the foundation of the universe is, or why its needed to be known, however, the foundation of any rational human discussion would be logic.

[Meister]

Logic cannot explain the universe because it's part of the universe.

Whatever created logic and the universe is obviously beyond logic.

[ofd]

Quote

Logic is an inevitable part of the process of discovery of truth, for without the principle of identity (A=A) how could we establish any truth as being true?

 

You can't Truths are tautological. You can make statements about nature that are very likely, but you can't proof them to be true.

[smarterthanone]

4 hours ago, Meister said:

Whatever created logic and the universe is obviously beyond logic.

Aristotle?

But seriously. Logic is the same as math. It is part of the human experience. It doesn't exist outside of our minds. It is a way we experience things, that is it. If humans didn't exist, there would be no being to experience math or logic and they would not exist. Not that just the concepts wouldn't exist/be invented, they literally wouldn't exist, someone must be doing the observing. Logic is all about relationships, there is no relationships without someone grouping things together in their mind.

[Meister]

41 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

Aristotle?

But seriously. Logic is the same as math. It is part of the human experience. It doesn't exist outside of our minds. It is a way we experience things, that is it. If humans didn't exist, there would be no being to experience math or logic and they would not exist. Not that just the concepts wouldn't exist/be invented, they literally wouldn't exist, someone must be doing the observing. Logic is all about relationships, there is no relationships without someone grouping things together in their mind.

I'm not a fan of Aristotle.

What you and me wrote is self evident.

And I agree with your post.

[shirgall]

Logic is a methodology for evaluating claims. What's all this other baggage?

[Donnadogsoth]

3 hours ago, shirgall said:

Logic is a methodology for evaluating claims. What's all this other baggage?

Logic is a concept that we apply to being. Would you agree that logic is a reflection of the coherence of being? The Universe as exists coherently and therefore is vulnerable to logic?

[shirgall]

3 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Logic is a concept that we apply to being. Would you agree that logic is a reflection of the coherence of being? The Universe as exists coherently and therefore is vulnerable to logic?

No, I don't agree to that at all. Logic is a tool with a specific purpose.

[Donnadogsoth]

36 minutes ago, shirgall said:

No, I don't agree to that at all. Logic is a tool with a specific purpose.

Then why does logic work?

[Meister]

55 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Then why does logic work?

Why does a hammer work?

[RichardY]

26 minutes ago, Meister said:

Why does a hammer work?

It doesn't.

[Donnadogsoth]

1 hour ago, Meister said:

Why does a hammer work?

A hammer accords in some fashion with the way the Universe really is.  It has the virtue of hammering things; the Universe, in other words, is predisposed to obey the will of the wielded hammer by suitably flatting or moving in response to said will.

Is logic not similar, in that the Universe built in some fashion as to accord with logic?  Not totally, of course, the Universe is not penetrable solely by logic; creative hypothesis and empirical experimentation are required to bridge the gap, but the principle of identity is necessary at some point in order to check our findings.

[shirgall]

3 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

A hammer accords in some fashion with the way the Universe really is.  It has the virtue of hammering things; the Universe, in other words, is predisposed to obey the will of the wielded hammer by suitably flatting or moving in response to said will.

Is logic not similar, in that the Universe built in some fashion as to accord with logic?  Not totally, of course, the Universe is not penetrable solely by logic; creative hypothesis and empirical experimentation are required to bridge the gap, but the principle of identity is necessary at some point in order to check our findings.

Logic is a methodology for evaluating the truth of statements. Hammering is a methodology for hitting one thing with another. What you do with the concept is up to you.

[Meister]

7 hours ago, RichardY said:

It doesn't.

Nails beg to differ.

[Mole]

On 7/9/2017 at 5:32 AM, Donnadogsoth said:

Logic is an inevitable part of the process of discovery of truth, for without the principle of identity (A=A) how could we establish any truth as being true?

I don't think logic is an inevitable part of the process of discovery of truth. I think empiricism precedes logic. If we see the universe as coherent, we can know it's coherent. Do we need to know A=A in this process?

 

On 7/9/2017 at 5:32 AM, Donnadogsoth said:

I agree logic is a concept that we apply to being. Would you agree that logic is a reflection of the coherence of being? The Universe as exists coherently and therefore is vulnerable to logic?

Yes. A=A comes from the coherence of the universe, isn't it?

[Donnadogsoth]

3 hours ago, Mole said:

I don't think logic is an inevitable part of the process of discovery of truth. I think empiricism precedes logic. If we see the universe as coherent, we can know it's coherent. Do we need to know A=A in this process?

 

Yes. A=A comes from the coherence of the universe, isn't it?

 

If Paleolithic Man stubs his toe on a rock, does he not gain a higher awareness of the identity of rocks?

 

On your second question, yes.

[shirgall]

1 hour ago, Donnadogsoth said:

If Paleolithic Man stubs his toe on a rock, does he not gain a higher awareness of the identity of rocks?

If he does it too much, Paleolithic Women will avoid such a "stoner".

[Mole]

3 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

 

If Paleolithic Man stubs his toe on a rock, does he not gain a higher awareness of the identity of rocks?

 

What are you trying to say?

[Donnadogsoth]

2 hours ago, Mole said:

What are you trying to say?

I'm saying I disagree with this statement.  I'm saying that logic and empiricism go hand in hand.

 

I don't think logic is an inevitable part of the process of discovery of truth. I think empiricism precedes logic. If we see the universe as coherent, we can know it's coherent. Do we need to know A=A in this process?