Questioning the Capability of logic

[Randolpin]

I just want to ask this question for you to become aware.We all know that logic is one of the major fuel which runs our rationality which is portrayed through science.But I dare you by asking this question ( if you don't know or cultivate an answer,just leave it).Is our reality can always be represented thru logic ? or are there parts of reality which logic can't be applied?

 

Tnx in advance for those who sincerely and conducively replied.And I'm pleased to meet you all.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Randolpin

[Strange]

There are an enormous range of things for which logic is not relevant. Most things, perhaps. For example, logic has nothing to say about liking rap music, or preferring beer over wine, or love, or what your favourite colour is...

 

However, you can still apply logic to these topics. For example:

All rap musicians are mortal.

Eminem is a rap musician.

Therefore Eminem is mortal.

[Randolpin]

There are an enormous range of things for which logic is not relevant. Most things, perhaps. For example, logic has nothing to say about liking rap music, or preferring beer over wine, or love, or what your favourite colour is...

 

However, you can still apply logic to these topics. For example:

All rap musicians are mortal.

Eminem is a rap musician.

Therefore Eminem is mortal.

Yes, I know that.Sorry, I didn't specified what my point is.I mean the physical reality.Is logic can always be applied to the laws of nature which runs our physical reality,which for example.as what physics pursue?

[Strange]

As the "laws of nature" are our mathematical models to describe what we observe, then yes, logic can always be applied by definition.

 

But if you mean, "can reality always be described mathematically", then the answer is we don't (can't) know. It is pretty surprising that we are able to describe reality as well as we do using mathematics. There are some who propose that this is because the universe has an underlying mathematical structure. But there is no way of knowing if that is true or not. Maybe at some point we will find we can go no further. Maybe we are there already. Who knows.

[Raider5678]

Yes, I know that.Sorry, I didn't specified what my point is.I mean the physical reality.Is logic can always be applied to the laws of nature which runs our physical reality,which for example.as what physics pursue?

To an extent, math is fueled by logic. The laws of nature fueled by math. And reality is fueled by the laws of nature. Reality is simply reality. So, I guess it could be depending how you look at it.

[Randolpin]

As the "laws of nature" are our mathematical models to describe what we observe, then yes, logic can always be applied by definition.

 

But if you mean, "can reality always be described mathematically", then the answer is we don't (can't) know. It is pretty surprising that we are able to describe reality as well as we do using mathematics. There are some who propose that this is because the universe has an underlying mathematical structure. But there is no way of knowing if that is true or not. Maybe at some point we will find we can go no further. Maybe we are there already. Who knows.

Nice answer.Thank you for your sincerity to answer.I appreciate it.

So, still it is an open question whether our reality can be described mathematically.

I just want to share this to you.How about the paradoxes,the strange things discovered by science which contradicts the previously known mathematical models like the problem of the origin of galaxies which is still not yet solve.Or in paradox,the fermi-hart paradox.??

Edited November 7, 2016 by Randolpin

[Strange]

As far as I know, there are no paradoxes in science. There things that are called paradoxes (like the Twins Paradox in relativity) which are just unintuitive results. And there are things we don't know (which seems to be the class of things you are talking about).

 

Finding things that contradict previous theories is not a paradox, it is scientific progress.

[Delta1212]

If you're drawing a map, and you run into a mountain that isn't on your map, the correct response is not, "Oh shoot, this isn't on my map. The whole map is wrong and I need to start over. Heck maybe cartography isn't even a valid way of describing the locations of things!"

 

It's "Oh, I better fix my map and add this mountain in."

[Strange]

So, still it is an open question whether our reality can be described mathematically.

 

 

That is not an open question. Our reality clearly can be described mathematically. We do it all the time. The question is whether there is a limit to how accurately or completely we can describe reality. Or will our ability to produce better models stop at some point. But even that would not prove that the universe is not mathematically describable; it could just mean that our puny monkey brains are too limited.

 

But, more likely, we will continue to produce better and better models.

[Ophiolite]

Randolpin, is there any particular reason that you suspect that logic may be inadequate to the task of "describing reality"?

[Eise]

Randolpin, you have a strange idea about what logic is. Logic tells us e.g. what valid arguments are, when propositions are contradicting each other, etc. What logic definitely isn't is a source of truth about empirical reality. The example you gave here are definitely not examples of logic. Logic tells us e.g. when you know on other grounds some true propositions, what follows from these.

 

So except tautologies (A is the case or A is not the case) which are always true, logic produces no truths on its own. But it tells us how the truth of propositions depends on the truth of others. So it is an absolutely necessary tool in science, and even more in mathematics.

[John Cuthber]

I just want to ask this question for you to become aware.We all know that logic is one of the major fuel which runs our rationality which is portrayed through science.But I dare you by asking this question ( if you don't know or cultivate an answer,just leave it).Is our reality can always be represented thru logic ? or are there parts of reality which logic can't be applied?

 

Tnx in advance for those who sincerely and conducively replied.And I'm pleased to meet you all.

We know that there are bits of maths that can't be decided using logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

What's less certain is whether or not any of that maths applies to the real world.

[Strange]

But, of course, we know that through the application of math and logic.

[Itoero]

Yes, I know that.Sorry, I didn't specified what my point is.I mean the physical reality.Is logic can always be applied to the laws of nature which runs our physical reality,which for example.as what physics pursue?

Only when you understand or have some knowledge concerning those laws of nature.

This is a nice example of what happens when you have not enough knowledge/understanding about something and you apply logic:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99867-we-are-in-early-stage-of-big-bang-and-there-would-be-a-black-whole-in-center-of-universe/

Applying logic like that causes many erroneous beliefs.

[paragaster]

I think Logic has nothing to do with Math or Science. If you look at human history you will realise that we knew a lot about Astronomy, Mathematics, Physics etc before getting into formal logic. The age of the word "logic" is less than age of words like Astronomy,Mathematics etc. Formal Logic was introduced by Greeks, much after the Sumerians and Egyptians, who were advanced in Astronomy and Mathematics.

Logic depends on Science and Math, not vice versa.

Edited November 8, 2016 by paragaster

[Ophiolite]

I think Logic has nothing to do with Math or Science. If you look at human history you will realise that we knew a lot about Astronomy, Mathematics, Physics etc before getting into formal logic. The age of the word "logic" is less than age of words like Astronomy,Mathematics etc. Formal Logic was introduced by Greeks, much after the Sumerians and Egyptians, who were advanced in Astronomy and Mathematics.

Logic depends on Science and Math, not vice versa.

You are describing the point at which logic was placed on a formal footing. Such success as was enjoyed by early "science" and mathematics was made possible by the application of informal logic. The limits of that success were arguably the result of the informality of that logic.

[Strange]

You are describing the point at which logic was placed on a formal footing. Such success as was enjoyed by early "science" and mathematics was made possible by the application of informal logic. The limits of that success were arguably the result of the informality of that logic.

 

 

Thanks for that. For some reason, the only response I could think of was "nonsense".

[Eise]

I think Logic has nothing to do with Math or Science. If you look at human history you will realise that we knew a lot about Astronomy, Mathematics, Physics etc before getting into formal logic. The age of the word "logic" is less than age of words like Astronomy,Mathematics etc. Formal Logic was introduced by Greeks, much after the Sumerians and Egyptians, who were advanced in Astronomy and Mathematics.

Logic depends on Science and Math, not vice versa.

 

I think that you forget people can do something, without explicitly knowing what, or how they are doing it. This is obviously true for speech (children can speak without knowing grammar explicitly, same for people who never were at school). So you do not necessary need formal logic to make valid arguments.

 

Also, you should distinguish between the chronological order of discovery and, well, logical dependency: one can do logic without doing math, but doing math without logical argumentation is of course impossible. Same for physics and math.

 

Edit: see that Ophiolite made a similar point already.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Eise

[Randolpin]

 

 

That is not an open question. Our reality clearly can be described mathematically. We do it all the time. The question is whether there is a limit to how accurately or completely we can describe reality. Or will our ability to produce better models stop at some point. But even that would not prove that the universe is not mathematically describable; it could just mean that our puny monkey brains are too limited.

 

But, more likely, we will continue to produce better and better models.

 

Sorry, your answer is what I want to convey to you.Thank you.So,according to you,we don't know if mathematics is effective in describing our reality in the long run.If it has a limit or not.

Randolpin, is there any particular reason that you suspect that logic may be inadequate to the task of "describing reality"?

 

Based on my study in quantum mechanics and other observations,yes.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Randolpin

[Strange]

Based on my study in quantum mechanics and other observations,yes.

 

 

Quantum mechanics is mathematical (i.e. logical) theory that describes reality extremely well. So in what way is this evidence that logic is not capable of describing reality?

[Country Boy]

Yes, I know that.Sorry, I didn't specified what my point is.I mean the physical reality.Is logic can always be applied to the laws of nature which runs our physical reality,which for example.as what physics pursue?

 

No, logic can only be applied to our models of "physical reality" Whether that gives "accurate" results or not depends upon how accurate our models are.

[Sriman Dutta]

Logic and rationality fails in paranormal activity cases.

[Blueyedlion]

It's easy enough to explain it like this - what is logical is what a person thinks should make sense based on what they think reality is for them. So the logic of awareness of someone who lived a thousand years ago wont be able to apply to what a person now knows of reality. It wouldn't be logical to think a person can travel around the world in over a day, or that you can break both your legs and then end up walking in just a year. Anything in the future will happen anyway, regardless of whether it would make sense based on our current understanding of reality.

 

In this way of thinking, anything is possible, we just haven't seen the evidence for it yet. Science does not reveal what is truth, science reveals truth's process, how truth can eventuate. The laws of physics are not rock solid, for the beginning of the universe expanded faster than light, so we know what we think something is as fact, will always be momentary. What stops both progress of thought and what is truly logical in deduction, is the presumption that without substantial evidence something can not be.

 

However, everything that can exist and can be, and already does in some form, we're just discovering them out for ourselves and then claiming everything outside of those limited handfuls of discoveries can't exist and it's not logical to because of the lack of supporting evidence. Until more evidence is found, we don't know and it's not worth the mind - this is dishonest thinking. The person is saying, i am uncomfortable to use my imagination outside what is already known because i could discover I'm wrong, and if I'm wrong I'm made a fool to myself and perhaps others, so I'll just go along with whats established.

 

This amounts to - everything in this pitch black room the flashlight touches is real and everything it doesn't touch is not real. However, everything is energy, nothing can’t divide away from it. The problem is, when you look at what is possible and what isn't, we think that reality is completely separate, that what's possible has an identity of its own. What is possible of reality is the room whether the light’s off or the light’s on. When the light is off, isn’t the room still there? It’s just different variations of light to darkness. Some things like to be in the room with the lights on. Some things live in total darkness, but they’re still inside the room.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Blueyedlion

[Eise]

It's easy enough to explain it like this - what is logical is what a person thinks should make sense based on what they think reality is for them. So the logic of awareness of someone who lived a thousand years ago wont be able to apply to what a person now knows of reality.

This is misuse of the word 'logic'. Logic has nothing to with how people experience the world. It is about how truth of propositions are related. One can study this independent of what proposition you think are really true.

 

1. If the world is a disc, one cannot travel around the world.

2. The world is a disc.

Conclusion: One cannot travel around the world.

 

This is a logical valid reference. Only proposition 2 happens to be wrong. But the argument is correct.

[Delta1212]

This is misuse of the word 'logic'. Logic has nothing to with how people experience the world. It is about how truth of propositions are related. One can study this independent of what proposition you think are really true.

 

1. If the world is a disc, one cannot travel around the world.

2. The world is a disc.

Conclusion: One cannot travel around the world.

 

This is a logical valid reference. Only proposition 2 happens to be wrong. But the argument is correct.

Thinking about it, when someone says that something seems logical informally, that is actually what they mean. They actually are saying that something appears to follow from a set of axiomatic premises. The problem is that the judgment is often rendered without taking stock of what all of the relevant premises that went into that conclusion are, and is almost always offered up without also offering up said premises so that someone else can check to see whether the conclusion really does flow from those premises and also whether those premises are true.

 

"It is logical that" always means "It is logical, given X, Y and Z, that" but you run into trouble when people don't take stock of their own X, Y and Z that lead to the conclusion, because it often results in them taking for granted that everyone agrees with those premises and that there is no fault in their (usually not very rigorous) thinking.