Questioning the Capability of logic

[paragaster]

What I gather from Mathematicians is that the application of Mathematics involves creativity. There is no one 'Comprehensive Mathematical Model' that is continuous by logical deduction that explains Reality even of the physical world.

[Blueyedlion]

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.

 

I don't follow your example one bit. You are creating a proposition based off what you think you're experience of the world is. It is in fact a testing of your reality, an exploration of how you experience the world. What game are you paying here??

 

"If the world is a disc" Is a direct posit on the inquiry of reality. Your proposition will always come out of how you think reality works - 'i propose something is like this' and that 'something' will be a segment of reality you are testing through a logical evaluation of it. You're taking what you know of experience and trying to making sense of it. You're telling me im doing something wrong and then doing the exact same thing yourself.

 

What i just did is point out logically that your view is illogical.

[Strange]

 

What i just did is point out logically that your view is illogical.

 

No. What you just did is to show that you don't seem to understand the difference between logic (the process of rigorous argument from a set of premises to a conclusion) and truth.

 

A logical argument does not have to be based in reality or truth. It simply says that IF the premises were true, then this will be the result. That means that if the premises are true, then the result of the logical argument is true.

 

However, if the premises are not true, then you cannot know if the result is true or false.

 

Logic is not about reality or about that makes sense to you. It does not depend on an individuals believes or opinions.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Strange

[Blueyedlion]

 

No. What you just did is to show that you don't seem to understand the difference between logic (the process of rigorous argument from a set of premises to a conclusion) and truth.

What are you talking about arguments for? Logic is the topic of discussion...

 

Yes you can apply logic to your position when arguing in conversation, but no one's talking about the application of logic in argumentative communication. What's being discussed is the merit of logical thinking in deducing what reality is.

 

If you were to apply logic to 'why are you feeling hungry?' The answer would most likely be that your body needs nutrition to keep itself going. That would make sense. However, if you were the type that ate until you were full to the extent that you ate more than your body required and you ate at selected times such as let's say breakfast 8 am, lunch 1 pm and dinner 6 pm every day, then you would be feeling hungry based off your mind telling your stomach when to feel hungry at certain times and not based on what your stomach is actually telling you. And so your hunger would not be based on a feeling but your opinion of yourself that would be telling your stomach when to be hungry.

 

In this example, logic plays no part in understanding your body when you apply common sense to it, because you're applying trends of others to inform you when is best to conduct your dietary needs. Instead of listening to your body, to which it does not operate in mental logic, but sense feeling. And so here we have a perfectly good example of how why we should question the capability of logic. Logic isn't going to tell you when your hungry, for feeling is not a thinking.

 

 

logic (the process of rigorous argument from a set of premises to a conclusion)

 

Just to reinforce my point, logic is not arguing. When you think of a premise to a conclusion, only when you are in conflict with anothers premise you wish to counter is that then an argument. And so of course concluding a premise is the function of logic, but for some strange reason you're thinking you have to involve an element of conflict between you and another for logic to be used. To have a premise, you have to have a foundation of what makes sense to you, which comes firstly from real world experience. Logic is you making sense of reality because you can only understand something based off the foundations of what you know and understand.

 

 

 

A logical argument does not have to be based in reality or truth

 

It really does though. You can apply logic to your imagination and say - in my story i'm thinking up, the set rules are that physics don't apply and i can do anything outside what is considered logical and possible. Here, you are creating your own set of conditions (or if you like no conditions and all) of what is logical and everything is abstraction. With the use of your imagination, the logic we use to understand reality has no merit. Your logic is of your own making but it is still logic - what makes sense to you. In this understanding of logic, there is no room for arguments, there is no common ground of experience to discuss. Now when using imagination to create what is logical, the use of abstract thought is the same mechanism used when in argumentative discussion, the only difference is that you have to bring your premise back down to reality in order be on the same level of accepting what is possible. You have to have a common ground and that common ground must be our shared experience of reality, not your own imagination of abstraction the other whom you are arguing with cannot relate to.

 

 

 

It simply says that IF the premises were true, then this will be the result.

 

And how can anyone else relate in understanding of that premise that's yours is, unless they had some sort of commonly shared experience of understanding from which to draw from in order conclude from?

 

 

 

That means that if the premises are true, then the result of the logical argument is true.

 

And what is truth? I'll tell you, when you are using imagination you are in your own truth as much as you are when you feel a physical or emotional experience. Reality exists in part in your mind as a state of mind. What you think is in fact a real experience for your mind. But sharing truth means sharing an agreed upon physical experience, to which your mind must draw from past or current memorable experiences from.

 

 

 

Logic is not about reality or about that makes sense to you. It does not depend on an individuals believes or opinions.

 

Well im pretty sure i just explained pretty damn well otherwise. I'l be looking forward to your reply

Edited November 22, 2016 by Blueyedlion

[Strange]

What are you talking about arguments for? Logic is the topic of discussion...

 

 

An "argument" is not a disagreement. It means providing a series of statements, using formal logic, that lead one from a set of premises to a conclusion.

 

There isn't much point in this discussion as I, and others, are discussing logic and you are discussing ... well, I'm not sure what.

[Phi for All]

There isn't much point in this discussion as I, and others, are discussing logic and you are discussing ... well, I'm not sure what.

 

I think it's safe to say that those questioning the capability of something should really do better at understanding it first. Too many people using their own definitions of things like logic, and theory.

[Eise]

Blueyedlion,

 

I suggest your read this small Wikipedia article on soundness. This should help you to understand what logic is, and how logical arguments (in the logic sense of the word!) differ from true statements. Oh, and, validity adds some more simple examples.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Eise

[Blueyedlion]

 

 

An "argument" is not a disagreement. It means providing a series of statements, using formal logic, that lead one from a set of premises to a conclusion.

 

There isn't much point in this discussion as I, and others, are discussing logic and you are discussing ... well, I'm not sure what. Y

Yeah you're right, i dont think i knew what i was talking about at all concerning argumentative logic. Lol cheers for the schooling

Edited November 23, 2016 by Blueyedlion

[Randolpin]

So is logic only based on subjective view on reality?

We only measure what reality presents to us and find the logic behind it.We really don't know the hidden mechanisms behind our reality or the objective reality.

[Ten oz]

So is logic only based on subjective view on reality?

We only measure what reality presents to us and find the logic behind it.We really don't know the hidden mechanisms behind our reality or the objective reality.

I view logic as a tool. As with any tool different people are able to use it to different degrees for different things. No one can be purely objective. Everyone is biased to some degree by their very existence. It I am hungry, hot, sad, injuried, tired, and etc impact the way my brain processes information. My reality is always subjective. Logic is a tool which can get me close to objective as possible to the degree which I am able. Ultimately my own limits (knowledge) will always still be a barrier.

[Strange]

So is logic only based on subjective view on reality?

 

 

No. Mathematics is not based on a subjective view of reality. It exists independently of that.

[studiot]

The OP for this thread

 

 

Randolphin post#1

Is our reality can always be represented thru logic ? or are there parts of reality which logic can't be applied?

 

 

 

Of course there are.

 

Logic, or even rational thinking which is less restrictive does not address objectives or preferences and likes in any way.

 

I like blue

You like green

 

There is no logic to either of these statements, but they constrain and direct our thinking, our view of the external world and even our actions.

 

There is no logic to doing anything.

That is logic alone provides no motivation, only a methodology

 

I like sausages.

I can go about obtaining sausages in a rational or irrational way, it makes no difference to the motivation.

But equally the motivation makes no difference to rational of obtaining sausages over tuna.

 

Without motivation logic would be (almost) totally useless.

Edited December 3, 2016 by studiot

[Tahir Gorgen]

I think the theory of everything (general) is the reality that we have token for sure in our mind.

 

Mental disorted ones, in psychoses for example, have difficultys to accept there reality. This also due to their sences.

 

Logic needs the information. Let me explain us. We are born with parts of dna of our parents. Carl Custaf said that childs are born whit fears as the dark. I do'nt think he was right. We are born whit our survival instinct. In the dark we can't gather information so well for example, that can make us affraid.

 

As that Descartes said. I want to prove my helthy mind and brainstorm in the second part with only my healthy mind. But do you understand what he was aiming? He wanted to prove his healthy mind to brainstorm without gathered knowledge that could be misleading..Without all the information we gather over our life period, we have nothing to think of.

 

So we gather knowledge/information and with our survival instinct and our sences we got more feelings. With this and the gathered information at the moment, we make up our reality that for some (people how are the victom of their own logic as those in psychoses) difficult is to accept.

 

This all makes our reality and I am also pointing to some because they need understanding.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Tahir Gorgen

[Randolpin]

I think,one aspect of being human where logic can't be applied is on the part of our emotional foundation...