Objective truth - from a Buddhist perspective #01

You have to have logic to have truth/falsity and unknown states. Is logic just a computation?
The next statement is a question, what is a question? (duh)
Is there a logic which is true for all forms of logic - a universally true logic, or, is there only a set of groups and classes restricted to be only universally true in their respective domains (for example, electronics)?
What the hell is a respective domain? Anyone?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not sure who you are referring to with your post however assuming it is a general comment,
I wonder whether logic is necessary for truth persee? Or is meaning necessary either?
I don't suggest these questions trivially either I might add.

Does an apple [object of matter ] have to mean apple to be a truth? for example.

Logic being the premise of the intellect and of course there is much more to reality than human intellect, would be an appropriate contra I feel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 3 characters.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Given That this thread is about discussing truth and not logic I am struggling to find the relevance of the above posts on logic.
It is true that we are trying to discuss objective truth using logic to do so which I might add is virtually impossible as logic necessarilly applies reductionalistic techniques thus rendering the absolute or objective truth unavailable.
[this is the contention of the thread btw]
So how does the above posts on logic have anything to do with Truth?

It doesn't other than to inhibit it... as far as I can tell...

 

Excellent point.

Truth and logic are distinctly different things.

The subject of Logic is validity, having nothing whatsoever to do with 'truth'.

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

'Truth' is merely a linguistic conceit.

 

Logic is all about true/false relationships, but is independent of real truth. Logic does not render truth unavailable. It is a means in which an observer can obtain truth. Even if logic is not used, an observer may hold truth.

The earth is round is true because all philosophers in history told me so. This is not a logical method of arrivng at the conclusion that the earth is round. But the observer indeed concluded that the earth is round.

 

Damn!
Truth is merely a linguistsic conciet!

Ok, I would proclaim it is true that there is a brick wall for me to posess in the material world, the world of subjective perception. I would claim then that the world is able to be rendered with certain truths. But what these truths are are most important, because we cannot simply agree that such a truth is real and independant of "truth", because if we do that then we state knowingly that there is no truth which is real in the material/subjective world which correstponds with reality.

There. Subject under discussion QQ.

 

Hey thx G for the link,
I found this at the bottom most interesting... We usually shoot for some sort of general basis for our realitys in any regard :bawl:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Is logic empirical?
Main article: Is logic empirical?
What is the epistemological status of the laws of logic? What sort of argument is appropriate for criticising purported principles of logic? In an influential paper entitled "Is logic empirical?"[23] Hilary Putnam, building on a suggestion of W.V. Quine, argued that in general the facts of propositional logic have a similar epistemological status as facts about the physical universe, for example as the laws of mechanics or of general relativity, and in particular that what physicists have learned about quantum mechanics provides a compelling case for abandoning certain familiar principles of classical logic: if we want to be realists about the physical phenomena described by quantum theory, then we should abandon the principle of distributivity, substituting for classical logic the quantum logic proposed by Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann.[24]

Another paper by the same name by Sir Michael Dummett argues that Putnam's desire for realism mandates the law of distributivity.[25] Distributivity of logic is essential for the realist's understanding of how propositions are true of the world in just the same way as he has argued the principle of bivalence is. In this way, the question, "Is logic empirical?" can be seen to lead naturally into the fundamental controversy in metaphysics on realism versus anti-realism.

Some of these terms I cannot understand their meanings unfortunately. I'm sure they're on that page, w/e.

 

and this is more or less what this thread is disputing.
According to Buddhist theory the mere act of thinking reduces by th euse of logic truth so that it is unattainable to the observer.
It is only whenone is entirely passive one can even get close to the truth of what there is to observe.
In this case logic actually inhibits the perception of truth but aids in the discovery of truth if and only if one is able to drop the use of logic to see what has been discovered using it.
So logic is not about truth but about aiding us in understanding it.

 

But logic is of machines, this is true because we can build machines. We can't build "the truth".

"truth" is the name of a state of some logical machine; "the truth" is a result, of some operation of a logical machine.

Truth is a logical construction.
So is there a "truth" that isn't a logical machine or construction?

 

does logic make two apples any more true, as two apples?

even if you don't apply logic there are two apples yes?

Logic is only a way for us to manage information and allow that information to fit in with out world view IMO.
Logic is only a tool we use to gain meaning that has value and is needed by us due to our world view.

again IMO
So in the context of this threads question about the minds need to apply reduction using logic, it appears that objective or absolute ttruth is unavailable as long as we have to think about it.

Don't think about and just "be" and the truth becomes more available.

A logical construction must be by necessity of subjectivity a lie and certainly not the truth. A mere simulcrum or simulation of what we would like to be the truth. IMO
i.e.
Attempt to contruct the objective truth of an apple with logic and you will be there for ever and still not come close.
anyways that's my take on it....

 

ha ....an interesting choice of words...."linguistic conceit! " indeed!!

Aside from its common usage, signifying "excessive pride", in literary terms, a conceit[1] is an extended metaphor with a complex logic that governs an entire poem or poetic passage. By juxtaposing, usurping and manipulating images and ideas in surprising ways, a conceit invites the reader into a more sophisticated understanding of an object of comparison. Extended conceits in English are part of the poetic idiom of Mannerism, during the later sixteenth and early seventeenth century. - wiki

You may recall the post that stated that absolute/self evident truth is a state of supreme arrogance....and a liguistic conceit can very well be added to it...ha

 

On "logic"...
If I say all elephants are pink and Bob is an elephant, logic dictates that Bob is pink.

Now - is it true that Bob is a pink elephant?

Unfortunately logic speaks nothing of the validity/truth of the premises of the inputs.
It is very much GIGO - albeit logical garbage that comes out.

 

As promised CC!
A good post and I find I agree in the main. And yes we do experience objective truth in every day life as long as we don't stop to analyse and enquire into it. IMO

regardless this thread is not so much about opinion - certainly not mine any ways it si more about attempting to understand that there is a possibility that absolute truth exists and is in fact right under our noses so to speak.

The threads topic is only one aspect for a larger approach to this issue.
certainly just referring to Budhhist theory is not in itself sufficient. But a good start IMO all the same.
The next thread will be about how absolute/ objective truth is a "floating" absolute. Floating in that it is self justified because the universe is constructed in a way that means that it must be self justified by the workings of the universe itself.

For example in physics a metric metre is a metre and remains a metre even in an expanding universe, the meter is always a meter as everything is expanding simultaneously.

 

:bawl:

 

The system of logic can/must be practically applied in order to arrive at the truth. Just because you can draw up and number of random fantastical arguments, it doesn't mean that the system cannot be used for practical purpose.

In buddist perspective, you in your natural state is a constant observer. No judgements no nothing. Simply constant observation. If logic inhibits perception, and blocks out the truth, there would have to be some sort of logical method for you to convince me this is true. But then becuase I require some logical explanation for your assertion, then the truth would be unavailable to me?

Regardless of what the buddists want you to believe. If you conclude X is true and X is true, you have knowledge. It doesn't matter what method you used to arrive at your conclusion. Whether you used logic or visions from Jesus, the fact of the matter is, you concluded X is true. Because X is true, you have knowledge.

 

What logic makes "two apples are true" logical? (??)

Where?

IOW, "two apples", is also two words, what do they 'mean' when you reverse the sequence?
Does "two are apples" make any sense? Why or why not?

IOW, you need a domain, and a range - you have to specify more than just two words, and you can't just assume everyone knows what it means. And again, the truth of two apples, may be a falsity in another domain. Truth depends on the logic being used, you need to be specific about what the logic is to specify what true and false means within it. You need predicates, etc.

'Ordinary language' is generally too vague for a formal system (of logic).

P.S. What is the Buddhist "formal logic" system? Or is it that there's some domain which has none, and this is the 'doctrine'?
Which is that there is no doctrine, ultimately, and so no 'truth'? Is it possible to ask a null-logic a question (query it)? Is there such a thing as either a null-logic, or a question?

 

You caught my reference exactly.
It is a 'useful fiction'.

Precisely.
Which is why we have developed specific formalized languages for the application of logic(s).


Truth is a state, or predicate; a constructed assertion derived from a wff (well formed formula) and as such is specifically limited to that particular scope.

And so:

Exactly. It is rather, a comment on the formulation involving those premises.

Exactly.

 

The idea of 'classical thought' in most formal logic systems is generally of a flow or a process (a computation, in fact), from which something 'crystallises' or appears. The idea of a propulsion towards a goal.

The way entropy goes in fact - we just characterise 'events' and imagine we can 'undo' them if we can build a machine that acts the same way; that the machine can be 'abstract' or 'in our heads' - we can step past the objection that a physical equivalent can't be built - this is abstract logic - the kind that helps us 'approximate' real, physical machines (or we imagine they are machines, we could 'build' one in principle, as Archimedes pointed out) - Natural Philosophy.

 

Indeed. This moves us more towards a discussion along the lines of meta-logic.

I'll leave it to QQ to clarify, but I think we've (somewhat) gone astray from the discussion he intended.
I'm not so sure it was Logic that he wanted to focus on, as much as the notion of 'objective'. Of course, given the OP and the thread title, the two concepts may be inextricably linked. But for my 2 cents, I'd say an examination of the concept of objectivity is really the focus here.