Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Quantum Quack, Dec 21, 2008.
Food for thought:
--p73, SciAm Sep 2004
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Of course not. How many times have I stated that logic can and is used to show actual truth? Logic is a tool. A tool when used correctly, allows us to arrive at conclusions of truth. Actual truth.
Is the idea of a quantity, related to the logic of objects? Is it another axiom of UI, (universal information); there must be a way to quantise any selection, or any interval, i.e. any logical process requires that time exists, objectively? There has to be a start position, IOW?
So any logical machine we can build, physically or at least derive 'in principle' (such as a powerful enough computer that could calculate our future), is qualitatively a formula that represents quantities and how they change over time, given a set of functions that change them. We like to do things 2 at a time, when we put them together to see how they work.
so a challenge to LIX:
using logic only with absolutely no pre-existing inspiration create an apple from nothing?
including it's genetics, it's mass and matter, it's location in time and space and it's magnetic fields in all their complexity. It's colour and it's taste and most importantly it's smell.
If you can do this using logic your point is proved. IMO
[Remember there is no apple to inspire your logical engineering either BTW]
I think his point is he would never state this in actual discussion. Can't even agree to general principals. General agreements. "Using logic" "using information on screen" w/e. Absurd and bizare...........
Is that different from "real truth"?
Wrong and illogical. I do not have to do all that crazy stuff you suggest, and my point stands. In order for a point to be flawed, it must be illogical. In order for a point to be valid, it must be logically valid.
I'll buy that last sentence, or most of it. So how would you associate validity with any logical construction?
How valid is it to say "I could move the earth if I had a big enough lever"?
Or "I could logically describe the process(es) that results in an apple leaving a tree, hitting the ground, and bouncing and rolling a short distance"?
Wouldn't someone want to know how logically, or according to what standards?
It is illogical to say that logic cannot be used to obtain truth simply because you cannot produce a physical apple with it or whatever. If you disregard logic, there is no point in discussion. Conclusion is anything anybody says.
I think you're confusing logical truth with something else.
Do you honestly expect any one to take this as a given with out reason to do so?
To accept what you are saying would indeed be illogical unless you are able to do more that use the same logic to support the same logic.
It is illogical to expect any ones acceptance of this above quote.
Maybe you will argue other wise but I would love to know why I should accept a logic with out reason to do so...
again I ask the obvious question:
Lix, do you agree that logic can only produce a simulation, a simulcrum, a virtual truth that may or may not approximate the actual truth but can never show the truth?
and again I expect that you will refuse to answer it in a way that is logical?
Disagree away... but you are missing the point.
You might agree logic is but a tool, but the result of any logical approach is subjective to the quality of the input.
Or do you disagree with that as well?
Okay... let's start with the assumptions: All elephants are pink, and Bob is an elephant.
Logic dictates that Bob is pink.
You agree so far?
So - "Bob is pink" is an objective truth?
No - obviously not.
The output of logic is only as objectively true as the inputs.
If you put flawed assumptions in, you get flawed results.
If you disagree - please demonstrate how logic can be used to obtain objective truth from non-objectively true inputs.
I am saying that the quality of output is determined by the quality of the input.
Only in so far as you assume the validity of the input. Why is this so difficult for you, and you alone, to understand.
If you chuck garbage at logic - logic will spit garbage back - albeit logically sound garbage that assumes the validity of the premises.
Only in relation to the quality of the input.
Lix, I will say this again. You miss the point entirely with regard to the usefulness of logic.
It is a fundamental tool in analysis but one that is only as "truthful" as the truthfulness of the inputs.
Unless you believe that "Bob is a pink elephant" is an objective truth?
NO! That is why I provided bussloads of reasoning behind it. Where did I ever say anything about "without reasoning to do so"? The fact that you require reasoning to do so implies necessity of a logical framework.
I shall post Fraggle's comment explaining this. You ask me if I expect anyone to take it as a given "without reason to do so" which is blind faith. Whereas he argues that it is not blind faith, but faith with some sort of reasoning behind it. At the end of his comment, he concludes that faith in logic is not blind faith, but reasonable faith. Whatever. Take it at blind faith or not. Logic is the framework that makes truth available to the human mind whether buddist or nudist.
No you're missing the point. Your example is something that is logically sound, but not necessarily true. Does it mean that logic cannot be applied to determine truth? No. In order for an observer to arrive at a conclusion, that observer might use any method under the sun. Logic however is the necessary framework for any method the observer uses.
Regardless of what method an observer uses to arrive at a conclusion, within logical framework, that observer can only have 2 possible conclusion. That is true or false.
Furthermore, within logical framework, an observer can only either be in a state of inconclusion (ob has not arrived at conclusion on a matter) or be in a state of belief (ob has arrived at conclusion on a matter).
Assuming all elephants are pink, you can procced with a logical analysis according to those assumptions. However, the fact is, logical framework for human observation is completely independent of truth in actuality. There is no argument that human practical use of logical framework is not attached to truth in actuality. It is nothing more than a framework humans use to draw conclusions about objective truth. Does this mean that objective truth is unavailable? No again. This is the reason why objective truth is available.
Everybody that seems to be participating in this thread wants to use logic in order to invalidate logic. Even QQ wants reasoning behind my belief that logic is a necessity. If you are in here explaining things, you have to have logical reasoning behind it. To say that logic makes truth unavailable is the opposite of what logic does.
Voila - you DO understand. But I fear the more you go on the less likely this will hold to be true.
You have yet to provide an example of where logic can determine objective truth from inputs that are not already examples of objective truth. Please do so if you wish to further this point.
Yet you yourself have stated in numerous other threads on this matter that an observer can use whatever means they want - which included guessing.
But be that as it may, and not wishing to side-track this thread... Logic is but a TOOL. It can not manufacture objective truth from anything other than objective truth.
Can a hammer turn rusty nails into good quality ones? No.
Yes - "true" and "false" in terms of his outcome are SUBJECTIVE - dependent entirely upon the validity of the inputs.
This is all good stuff... we're agreeing that the logic we use is independent of objective truth.
But then you go on...
It CAN be... if objective truth is an input.
But if we know the input is objective truth before it has been through the tool of logic, what purpose does the tool serve other than do help us draw objective conclusions from the objective truth? I.e. to get objective truth as an output requires objective truth as the input.
You agree that the output of logic is subject to the premise/inputs... i.e. you put garbage in you get logical-garbage out (e.g. Bob being a pink elephant).
So why do you find it so hard to see that the only way logic can arrive at objective truth is if the inputs are also objective truths?
And if the inputs are already objective truths... why is logic needed to establish their nature as objective truths?
Logic adds nothing to the inputs nor takes anything away, but merely draws conclusions from them.
So... imagine the inputs are sheets of metal - Aluminium is "objective truth", all others are not.
Imagine logic is a tool that hammers the sheets together (i.e. takes nothing away nor adds anything - but helps us draw conclusions).
We are trying to get pure aluminium out of the tool as our conclusion.
The only way we can do this, I'm sure you'll agree, is to have pure aluminium as the inputs.
But if we already have pure aluminium as our inputs... why do we need to use the tool?
I'm baffled by this argument... you say that because you consider objective truth to be not unavailable, this is why it is available???
Your understanding is incorrect.
We are demonstrating that logic is invalid as a tool to help us sift through subjectivity to arrive at objective truth.
Logic is, which you fail to understand, a tool that makes logical conclusions out of any input. But it can not determine which input is objective truth and which is not.
We're certainly not invalidating logic - merely accepting its limitations in determining objective truth.
Logic works on the basis of inputs.
It can NOT determine which input is objective truth or not.
It WILL give you a logical conclusion - but not necessarily a true one (e.g. Bob) - as it is entirely dependent upon its inputs.
Please - show us how you think logic can sift through the subjectivity to arrive at the objective.
Please? An example will do so we at least know you are not merely arguing out of personal incredulity.
You do not seem to read entire post before responding. Instead, you respond line by line then misinterpret the point.
This is a fact and this does not contradict anything I have explained:
Logic is necessary to determine truth. Input/output does not change this fact. If X is true, it is only true. The observer cannot hold X to be only true without logic. Logical framework gives the observer access to truth. The observer can and does use logic to access truth. Logic can and does make truth available to the observer.
Your posts #95 and #96 are excellent: clear, concise, and most importantly, all correct.
Any logic is always limited by the following:
1) The axioms upon which it is constructed.
2) Its substitution rules.
3) Its premisses (input variables).
And from these three together,
4) its scope.
And so, when we introduce a premiss granted 'objectively true', we can generate nothing but. This is a tautology. (which are, as we know, void of meaning)
p.s. It's not always the case that a logic will provide a true and/or false conclusion. Modal logic, for example, can validly generate a "maybe".
Maybe Glaucon, Sarkus and others would care to test this statement as LIX is obviously not able to entertain it.
Limitations of logic:
Logic can only produce a simulation, a simulcrum, a virtual truth that may or may not approximate the actual truth but can never show the truth?
Regardless of the veracity of input which of course is always hear-say or second hand information any way [ filtered through our perceptions] the output can not do anything other than provide subjective conclusions about the objective reality we are investigating. [presumption of objective reality exists or is existing]
I would further contend that Absolute truth requires no conclusion in that it is what it is and no alternative is available, therefore there is nothing to conclude except possibly acknowledgement or recognition.
Acknowledgement/recognition of absolute truth is what conclusion is about. I believe that X is true. I am recognizing/acknowledgeing that X is true.
Separate names with a comma.