Reality as Logical Connectives

Modus ponens[1][2][3][4]) or implication elimination is a valid, simple argument form and rule of inference.[5] It can be summarized as "P implies Q; P is asserted to be true, so therefore Q must be true." The history of modus ponens goes back to antiquity.[6]

An example is:

If it is raining, I will meet you at the theater.
It is raining.
Therefore, I will meet you at the theater.
Modus ponens can be stated formally as:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reported for plagiarism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My mistake, I forgot to include the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

Reality can be seen as an implication elimination. Don't get your knickers in a twist mate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you for the lecture, Spellbound.
But once again, all you do is quote someone (this time none other than the esteemed wikipedia) and then add nothing to it, at least not until prompted to.
Why don't you ever learn?

So what is the point of this thread, other than to post what we can all read in wiki, followed in your second post with nothing but a trite comment that is just a statement/claim, with nothing to support your thinking, your reasoning?

Learn to do more in your OP than just quote someone/thing - like maybe explaining what the thread is about, and what the potential issue is that you wish to discuss.
Also learn to support your claims.

 

Sorry Sarkus. But I barely had time to support the claim. Basically, I am placing a spin on determinism and Newtonian action-reaction mechanics. Say you have a proposition P

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Q. The connective

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

is an implication that Q follows P or P implies Q. Both P and Q, as well as the connective

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, are all members of the same set, namely reality.

 

What a ridiculous and pretentious statement! Newtonian action-reaction mechanics, no less! Impressive, eh?

 

I was referring to cause and effect as defined by Newtonian mechanics.

 

If you "barely had time to support the claim" then it is better that you don't post anything until you have time.
This is your MO: quote someone else's work and then add a trite comment such as "therefore reality is real."
You never provide explanation in your OPs, nor support, nor any actual notion of what you are wanting to discuss, until someone drags it out of you usually by your third or fourth post. And even then it is dubious as to whether or not it explains anything about what you are saying.

All you have done here is take an element of how reality appears to behave (cause and effect, although you have also stated determinism, and that does not seem to be how the universe operates) and tried to equate it to the logical rule of inference Modus Ponens.
They aren't the same.
Cause and effect merely means every effect was caused.
Modus Ponens, while inferring an effect from a cause, is the argument that states that IF P follows Q then if you have P then Q will follow.
But neither P nor Q need be part of the set of reality, as you claim:
If Tartax rules Ghomeston III then their genetically enhanced pigs will take to the air and fly. Tartax does rule Ghomeston III and thus we can infer, due to The logic of Modus Ponens, what happens to their genetically enhanced pigs.
But this is merely a matter of valid logic. Not of reality. Reality is a matter of soundness, of the truth of the propositions being used.

So back to the drawing board with you, Spellbound. And next time you wish to pour forth your thoughts on reality, please abide by the forum rules, support your claims, reference your quotes, and stop preaching.

 

Newtonian mechanics does not "define" cause and effect.

It, like any physical theory, assumes there is such a thing as cause and effect. In other words it assumes certain causes can be identified that have certain effects. Any physical concept of any value at all will do that much. Just try to imagine one that doesn't! And read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

Newtonian mechanics concerns itself with a particular subset of causes and predicts their effects, that's all.

 

Of course they are. Logic dictates reality. If given a number of options, you can make but one choice. That choice will depend on factors such as intelligence and emotions.

Correct. They do not need to be. But the examples we fabricate follow the same set of rules of inference as reality.

Indeed.

Alright.

 

Modus ponens (the 'affirming mode') is a form (literally) of logical deduction. Another is modus tollens (the denying mode):

P -> Q, ~Q therefore ~P

Ok, so what is 'logical deduction'? Deduction is a kind of argument or inference in which conclusions must follow from premises. Understanding the nature of that 'must' (logical necessity) is still an open philosophical question. Aristotle seems to have been the first to notice that this deductive necessity seems to be a function of the form that arguments take, regardless of what it is that's being argued about.

I'm willing to agree that logic is a (rather mysterious) feature of reality. Logic is indeed real. But I don't want to interpret this usage of 'is' as logical equivalence, since it isn't logically symmetric.

Cheese is real, but reality isn't cheese. Reality is cheese plus a vast (and unknown) number of other things that aren't cheese

We also should probably keep in mind that P, Q and P -> Q needn't all be true in order for logical implication to hold.

If the moon was made of cheese, then the earth would be chocolate cake (P -> Q). The moon is made of cheese (P).

Therefore, the earth is chocolate cake (Q).

That's an example of modus ponens, simply because of its logical form, and is thus a valid deduction, even though the premises and conclusion aren't true. (Its validity lies in the fact that if both of its premises were true, then the truth of the conclusion would necessarily follow.)

If you want to create a metaphysics that spins physical reality out of logical form, you're not only going to have to find a suitable set of premises from which to deduce everything else (an impossible task), you're gong to need to find some way to assign truth-values to everything, along with providing some account of what 'truth' means in your scheme that doesn't end up begging fundamental ontological questions.

 

Reality is logic. So yes, logic is indeed real.

It would not violate grammatical rules to call reality cheese. It is cheese as well as a vast number of other things. All of which are made up of the same thing, namely matter or energy if you will. So you would not be incorrect to switch the subjects.

Yes. Truth can be defined as a statement which is free from fault and contradiction.

 

Reality is not logic. Reality is logic + any number of other things.

It does not violate grammar but it does violate sense to switch the two.
Otherwise you can end up saying 1 = 2 because 2 is also a number, or made up a number of 1s.

Cheese is a collection of specific patterns of matter/energy. To claim that "reality is cheese" is to claim that reality is one such specific pattern, whereas reality merely contains that specific pattern, along with countless others.

Then apply that to your statements and claims, please, because at the moment you are woefully short of it.

 

I will just say... have a nice day Sarkus. And go on meh merry way.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In mathematics, computer science, and linguistics, a formal language is a set of strings of symbols that may be constrained by rules that are specific to it.

(...)

The field of formal language theory studies primarily the purely syntactical aspects of such languages—that is, their internal structural patterns. Formal language theory sprang out of linguistics, as a way of understanding the syntactic regularities of natural languages.

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

Reality is a formal language. It consists of a set of strings of symbols (space, time and object triality), and a set of rules by which they follow.

 

Wiki description of "symbol" : " A symbol is an object that represents, stands for, or suggests an idea, visual image, belief, action, or material entity."

So, you are asserting that reality is a string of objects that represent or stand for, ideas, images, beliefs , actions or material entity.

Taking just the last of these, you are asserting that reality is a string of objects that represent or stand for [among other things] material entities. So what then are these material entities? Are they real or not?

 

They're real alright. Space, time and object are the symbols or expressions of the formal language, and the laws of nature would be the rules under which they are governed. Reality is a set consisting of these elements or alphabets. It can be seen as a dual aspect monism familiarly known as wave-particle duality. Each of its objects are dual.

 

That's stated with a awful lot of assurance. How do you know this? Is there any convincing reason why the rest of us should believe it?

That just seems to be your expression of an analogy between languages (collections of words along with syntactical rules that by means of which the words combine into expressions), and physical reality being a collection of objects/events along with logic, mathematics and the laws of physics that seemingly govern their relationships and transformations.

 

It does seem Spellbound confuses analogy with equivalence.
Equivalence is stating A=B (I.e. They are equal, the same).
Analogy is to say A is to B as C is to D. But that does not mean that A is D, nor C is B. The equivalence intended in an analogy is the relationship between the objects, not the objects themselves.

So while there may be some analogies between aspects of reality and language, or logical connectives, it does not follow that reality IS those things, especially when IS also implies "that and only that".

I may be doing him a disservice, as his comments / analogies generally involve something that is driven by the way the universe operates, which he then says "Reality is X".
E.g. With logical connectives, it is the way the universe operates that has lead to the formulation of logic. And so Spellbound merely says "So reality is logical connectives" or some such.

It's all just a restatement of trivialities to sound somehow more meaningful than it actually is.
You can try it with anything: reality has given rise to language... Therefore reality is language.
Reality has given rise to cat food... Therefore reality is cat food.

Ultimately all these posts by Spellbound condense down to stating "Reality is how reality works".
And all the meaningfulness that one can derive from that.

 

What has wave-particle duality got to do with it?

Very much agree. The statement "The lump of Stilton cheese in my cellar is real" would lead Spellbound to pronounce "Reality is Stilton" and think it a profound insight. Spellbound also has what, to me, is an irritating habit of weaving scientific terms into his statements, without justifying them.

Though, as with many of these, ahem, eccentric posters, just once in a while something interesting comes from their activities. For example, Spellbound's apparently ridiculous statements about time led me to research the notion, which in fact I found some physicists and philosophers hold perfectly seriously, that the common parlance of time "passing" leads to misapprehensions about the nature of time. I was astonished to find several articles on the subject. (Time, apparently, does not "pass". It "continues". Blimey. Well now I know.)