Is logic embedded into the structure of the universe or is it rather embedded into the structure of the sentient beings that have used it (or recognized it)? Is it because the universe apparently behaves in a consistent ways (following its own "rules") that we can observe the playing out of logic in various scenarios? Is there a "cause and effect" relationship in the way that the universe "follows its own rules" that is mirrored in the cause and effect that we observe in the operations of logical relationships (if this ,then that)? I am wondering if the human study of logic is something that those humans have "found within themselves" as thinking beings or whether it is a rationalisation of their observations of the way that the external world works.
I would contend neither Physics is what it is. If physics only fits stuff together one way under certain conditions that is how it will always be. Change the conditions and now have 20 choices how to fit together the new conditions will always produce 20 choices When looking at such physical processes and discovering the properties of stuff involved and understanding WHY leads to labelling of such physical processes as being logical ie a required output will not occur unless these specific conditions are met Us Minons note this and understand WHY (it makes sense) Pick any situation you consider to be impossible. List the reasons why Against the reasons why, said situation is impossible, list what needs to be changed, to cancel that particular reason Eventually you finish with conditions which will allow your particular outcome, or NOT The totality of conditions - always present The mismatch conditions - always present The correct fit conditions - always present Minions looking for correct fit conditions - use logic Making the correct fit - becomes logical Vulcan fit with Human = Spock NOT logical Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There were cycles: day/night, signs in the sky, and seasons. But given all the ridiculous items that earlier humans imaginatively extracted from or projected onto their observed environment, part of if not most of the urge for consistent order surely came from needing to regulate social behavior and work practices reliably. Governing human thought itself with true/false absolutes and prohibition of contradiction inevitably followed. Ragged reasoning was around since the dawn of tool-making, but it wasn't disciplined. Thus, by their very nature (the historical ones at least), invented formal systems "on paper" acquired a population of rational and sensible objects and other furniture immutably defined and evaluated. IOW, utile pretensions of an ideal world of unconditionals that is not vulnerable to relationships, contingent viewpoints, varying empirical content, and motivated assessment frames when it comes outputting interpretations of or assigning strict values to an _X_. When administrations, institutions, and movements wanted/needed control and stability -- a raw world of context, relativism, and perspectives was an abhorrent impediment to that goal. One exception might be when tearing down an existing scheme or tradition -- one would first want to undermine the current claim of a relation-resistant foundation to destroy confidence in it, so to afterwards incrementally install another rigid conception ("Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.")
Logic is a way of processing information. When there are relative values and mathematical functions, logic is "neccessary " for the maintenance of "orderly processing". Let's not forget that mathematics is aspect of Logic.
Addressing this question... If the cosmos has a figurative guidebook for its supposed order or whatever, it seems a stretch that such would generously correspond to our still developing schemes and investigations of logic (initiated so many centuries ago). We may be projecting upon the world the fruits of a reasoning template embedded in the WEIRD cultural orientation, which presumably isn't even a default of the human species (universal, non-eccentric, native). As the nearest thing to extraterrestrial intelligence in our grasp, AI machine learning hints that our rational style could be one in a crowd or far from the top of the food chain's apex. (Excerpt at bottom.) Evolution arguably (more studies to be conducted yet) selects for fitness rather than existential truth when it comes to perceptual strategies. Which is to say, if so then success at achieving aims and avoiding destruction isn't deeply reliant upon presenting a mental-independent realm as it literally is (that's why "representating" should be the recruited word instead). Similar to how a user effectively manipulates the graphics interface of a computer minus the latter appearances reflecting what is subsisting and complicatedly transpiring in the device's electronic guts. Similar might apply to the apprehensions and abstract products of reasoning (or our brand of it). Old models of atoms still produced nuclear bombs that worked, even if revised since or radically replaced in the future. Artificial intelligence is making the limits of human knowledge painfully obvious. https://www.wired.com/story/our-machines-now-have-knowledge-well-never-understand/ EXCERPT: "The new availability of huge amounts of data, along with the statistical tools to crunch these numbers, offers a whole new way of understanding the world. Correlation supersedes causation, and science can advance even without coherent models, unified theories, or really any mechanistic explanation at all." So wrote Wired’s Chris Anderson in 2008. It kicked up a little storm at the time [...] For example, an article in a journal of molecular biology asked, “…if we stop looking for models and hypotheses, are we still really doing science?” The answer clearly was supposed to be: “No.” But today [...] the controversy sounds quaint. Advances in computer software, enabled by our newly capacious, networked hardware, are enabling computers not only to start without models — rule sets that express how the elements of a system affect one another — but to generate their own, albeit ones that may not look much like what humans would create. It’s even becoming a standard method, as any self-respecting tech company has now adopted a “machine-learning first” ethic. We are increasingly relying on machines that derive conclusions from models that they themselves have created, models that are often beyond human comprehension, models that “think” about the world differently than we do. But this comes with a price. This infusion of alien intelligence is bringing into question the assumptions embedded in our long Western tradition. We thought knowledge was about finding the order hidden in the chaos. We thought it was about simplifying the world. It looks like we were wrong. Knowing the world may require giving up on understanding it.
You bet! Clearly, human thought is generated and experienced in the human brain. Descartes, "I think therefore I am". Which suggests that the universe does not think in the abstract. It functions without emotion or prejudice, in a rigid mathematical framework, which may be titled a quasi-intelligent universal "common denominator" or "pattern."
Not only cause and effect but also Affect . Which we tend to not include in logic . And in no particular order , since all include each other in actions . The cause of a earth quake is the effect of geological movement , the affect is a tsunami . For example So then the cause of damage by the tsunami is an affect of the effect of the tidal wave . Therefore logic based on just " cause and effect " is incomplete without Affect being included.
So then the affect of the wave causes damage to the shores upon which it encounters , and the effect of this , changes the land .
I agree with a minor correction. The phrase is "Cause and Effect". Affect is something else. One might say the cause affects the resulting effect, but that basically a redundancy. The Cause (noun) is a value, Affect (verb) is a function. Effect (noun) is a value.
Affect is something else , thats my point . So in my posts#10 and 11. Show me the error in my logic .
The affect of the effect of the cause of getting into your car , of starting your car , is destination .
Well , one example appears flawed to me. IMO, that should read; "the cause of an earthquake is the effect of geological movement. The cause of a Tsunami is the effect of an earthquake. However, the size of the geological movement affects the size of the earthquake and the size of the resulting Tsunami?
The Affect of the cause and effect of the earthquake is the damage to where ever the tsunami wave ( effect of the cause ) lands .
"Affect" is qualitative . Everything can be seen as a chain of events ,each one with its own direct effect. (So causes and effects) When two events are only connected by intermediary events we could say that the earlier event affects the quality of the latter. My flouting the coronavirus rules may affect your quality of life ,but only indirectly.
To your last statement ; disagree The rules are directly the affect of the viruses , cause and effect .
That's absolute stark raving crazy river! Perhaps you just like seeing/hearing yourself talk? The effects of the virus are well know, sickness and death in some cases. The cause of the virus is not certain at this time or so I'm lead to believe. The rules are simply our attempts at avoiding the virus.
