The Origin of Logic

[Daniel Patrick Fisher]

I have shared this theory off and on over the years and have noticed that almost every one has a curious aversion toward even contemplating it. I think it is because it reveals the core of our identity, which is constructed using the means the theory describes. Our identity is a very sacred and private place where intrusion is not welcome. I would love to see if some one here is brave enough to responds

The Origin of Logic

Briefly, the theory sees the origin of our logic system as similar to the origin of life, where all of the complexities of life/logic are made of a single act repeated over and over. In both cases that act is simple, yet far more complex than anything that precedes it. In the case of logic, it is the ability to recognize uniqueness, or ARU. As with the creation of a single cell, several important things must occur simultaneously. An object cannot be unique without a whole from which it is separate. The object is unique, the whole is unique and the separation is unique. The separation gives birth to measurement, direction and difference. The object/whole gives birth to existence since it cannot exist without the potential for it to not exist. Recognizing the uniqueness of events creates time. Probably by the time we are adults we have layered up hundreds of thousands or even millions of repetitions of the act of recognizing uniqueness.

I believe ARU is also what separates us from the apes or other animals. One could make a credible case for early humans standing upright in order to better see/understand the whole. This would account for the evolutionary suddenness of this event since, clearly, no single part can be created without all of the other parts. Other distinctly human characteristics such as social structure, language (unique sounds must be assigned to unique objects), tool making and belief in the afterlife, would soon follow. It might also be reasonable to assume that ARU was a genetic mutation giving the primates who possessed it an immediate and distinct advantage over those that did not. If this were true, then the gene responsible would still be present today and could be isolated

Support:

With ARU, we are able to take our temporal experience of reality and construct a conceptual version of reality. The primary tool used for this is measurement, which occurs when the object is separated from the whole, producing a difference. No measurement in physical reality has any meaning without the conceptualizing produced by ARU. The first measurements were probably simple comparisons that were visual in nature. Erg: a stone is more effective than a fist, a sharp stone is more effective still, a long stick augments the power of a blow, etc. More complex measurements in the form of logic came later. With simple logic, two propositions are analyzed, evaluated, compared, (all forms of measurement) to infer (sum up) a conclusion which creates a third, previously unknown proposition. A proposition is a fact or collection of facts. A fact consists of observed objects or events (objects in motion), defined the only way they can be which is; by their relationship to (separation from) the whole. This again is a product of ARU. “Whole” itself, must be defined as a concept since it cannot be physically observed either in stasis or in motion. No matter how complex the logic gets, the tool that drives it is still one form or another of measurement made possible by the “action” of ARU. It also follows that the concept of uniqueness applies to all of reality. Even objects or events that are by the best observation identical. nonetheless remain unique, since each is itself and not the other. Even the concept itself, as a noun, is a unique “object” of thought

Daniel Patrick Fisher

[Dekan]

@ D. P Fisher's #1:

 

A thought-provoking post. As I understand it, you're laying stress on "uniqueness", "measurement" and " conceptualisation" as characteristics of logic. I'm not sure I entirely agree.

 

First of all, what actually do we mean by "logic" - it's a slippery word. It comes of course from the classical Greek "logos". This has so many shades of meaning that it's hard to pin down. The basic, root, meaning is "talk" or "word". This gets extended to the idea of "discourse", "discussion", "study". As in for example "Biology", which might be rendered "Lifetalk" or "Lifestudy". If we were using words with Anglo-Saxon roots, we might call it "Lifelore", where "lore" has a similar slightly hazy meaning. Because of this lack of precision, "lore" tends to be only used nowadays in terms like "Folklore". And is avoided in modern scientific usage.

 

The most comprehensive modern equivalent to "logic" might be "reasoning". But even that gets narrowed down to propositions such as:

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. And aren't propositions like these, aimed at establishing not "uniqueness" - but "commonality"?

 

The other factors you mention - "measurement" and "conceptualisation" - also seem to be applied, at least in Science, towards the same aim or goal - that of identifying commonality.

 

I must admit to struggling to express myself here - abstract nouns always distress me, and I much prefer specific concrete words. So perhaps I could use a concrete example: Suppose you have in front of you two bowls of nuts. One contains a dozen peanuts, and the other a dozen hazelnuts. One bowl is large and circular, the other smaller and slightly elliptical. So there are in total 26 separate objects.

 

Now if you applied your criterion of "measurement" to them, wouldn't you have to conclude that you were confronted by 26 unique objects.

The bowls aren't the exact same shape and size. And they aren't the same shape and size as the nuts. And the peanuts aren't the same as the hazelnuts. And no individual nut, if measured carefully, is exactly the same as any other.

 

Nevertheless if we go beyond mere measurement, and look at "commonality", we can surely identify a lot of common factors, such as:

 

1. The two bowls, despite their different sizes and shapes, are both recognisably "bowls" - they both possess "bowlness".

2. Similarly the nuts, despite species difference, are all nuts.

3. Both the bowls and the nuts are, in a sense "containers"

4. The numbers of the supplies of nuts are the same 12 = 12

5. 12 and 12 are both even numbers

 

And so on and so forth. And aren't these common factors found, and identified, by a process of conceptualisation of commonality.

Just as Newton is (apocryphally) supposed to have dentified Gravity by conceptualising the commonality between the fall of an apple, and the orbit of the Moon?

Edited February 5, 2014 by Dekan

[Daniel Patrick Fisher]

Dekan:

 

Thank you for YOUR thought provoking post. The most productive I've seen so far. "Logic" is indeed a slippery word and thank you for mentioning the root. I would imagine the very first "words" referred to objects, and subsequently the base for language. As for commonality, I do not see it as a contradiction to ARU. The concept itself comes from identifying two things as uniquely similar. Also as I mentioned in the support, no matter how similar, each is itself and not the other.

 

I am not stressing uniqueness in the typical sense of the word or it's common use. I am stressing what it takes to create the concept of uniqueness, which is it's relationship to the whole, with "relationship", in the simplest terms being a measurement. Measurement creates definition and anything can be defined either by how similar or how different it is to another thing, each definition making the same statement in different ways.

 

I could say, for instance: "My theory of ARU is 50 percent rational." Some one else might say: "It's 50 percent irrational."

 

I should also mention at this point that I am well aware that a thought isn't generally considered to be an "action". If anything, the exact opposite. That being said, I must admit that I myself had trouble making sense of this notion of ARU until I began to see it as an activity, or action. Not physical perhaps, but still somehow similar.

[PeterJ]

Is this just the recognition that logically-speaking difference requires identity, and identity requires difference?

[Daniel Patrick Fisher]

Exactly how the core of our identity is formed would of course be a whole topic in itself. To reply in short I would just say: we recognize ourselves as unique, and yes, therefore distinctly different. Does my thesis on the origin of logic make sense to you?

[Daniel Patrick Fisher]

I am adding this if-then proposition concerning the backbone of my thesis in the hope that it will make what I am attempting to say more clear:

 

If what we can ascertain about our reality is that it is made of objects, from god particles to super novas, and concepts are then formed, stemming from observations about the behavior of these objects, i.e.. objects in motion/events,

then the primary perceptive facility needed to construct this picture of reality, is one which allows us to attach abstract significance to the object, isolating it as singular and distinct (a synonym for unique) from it’s surroundings.

In addition I might point out that the holy grail of science is the "purely objective point of view", with the key word in the phrase being "objective" and the key word within that word being "object". Could be coincidence, but maybe not. Even "point of view" refers to the most pure object of all; a point in space.

[Roamer]

Hmm, we're creatures with a lot of imagination, that part of imagination that (we expect to) match(es) reality, we call logic.

Basically, our ability to distinguish patterns.

Uniqueness can be used to give the starting parameters for an object(and subject), and i do not wish to deny it's importance to any advanced kind of logic,

but wouldn't it fall under something like memory first ?

[hoola]

the discussion of human-based logic is interesting, but any discussion of the origin of logic must pre-date humanity or even life itself. Since life proceeded from inanimate material, the logic that could allow such a transformation to take place must have been in place even before there was a material universe, or else the underlying logic of physical reality could not have ever been expressed as the "big bang". It seems logic allows the formulation of long term stable values of the physical parameters of matter and energy to allow associations to take place, of a repeatable fashion, to allow the evolution of, and within the universe, to happen. If logic had a beginning, I see it as a random stabilizing or "freezing out" of a finite region within the greater and perhaps infinite chaos. That chaos having something similar to particles and energy, but of indeterminate and constantly fluxing values, so unable to form any external relationships, thus remaining "chaotic" and without logic.....

Edited April 16, 2014 by hoola

[PeterJ]

Nice point hoola.

[hoola]

thanks peter, in my further thinking about the origin of logic, that being a stabilization of a finite region of chaos providing stability to particular values within a region, I see that stabilization between discrete "particles" as a secondary action, the primary action being the theoretical existence of the particles themselves with the unstable values. To further complicate matters, I see these "values" as having no mathematical value reference, as math had not evolved yet, and must have been preceeded by logic evolution, which provided the scaffolding for information evolution, which we call "the maths". That scaffolding is of a certain "shape" which allows certain relationships to take place, and dis-allows others, giving the characteristic appearance and behaviors of the physical universe. I see that the maths are still evolving, and that is the driving force behind the continuing existence of the universe...as well as it's origin...

[Daniel Patrick Fisher]

I don't see chaos as the opposite of logic. Our ability to think logically does give us the ability to recognize patterns. Some we see as ordered, some we see as disordered, or chaotic. When I talk about the origin of logic I am referring to a particular perceptive ability only we humans possess. I think we can assume that if we use this ability to discern order, or chaos for that matter, any such order or chaos inherent in the universe would have been there from the beginning.

 

Memory, on the other hand, is something we share with other species. It definitely enhances logic as it does many other things, like emotion.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Daniel Patrick Fisher

[PeterJ]

Right at the start of things, it is difficult to see the difference between the laws of logic and the laws of physics. If the law of the excluded middle had not have been there from the start, then the Big Bang might have occurred, not occurred, and neither occurred nor not-occurred.

[hoola]

to presume that humans have any special gift of logic, is contrary to studies of logic in monkeys, dogs, cats, ravens, even the invertebrate octopi...the main difference is that we have an ability to recognize that we have the ability...and give it a name...and our advanced intellect allows us to debate the subject. If you believe humans only have logic, then which species of homo in particular? Homo erectus, habilis, astraliopithicus? Did not neanderthals have logic enough to survive the last ice age?

[mudassar1]

This is an impressively written book, and I found it quite interesting for the most part. Note that it's a lengthy volume - the hardcover is 528 pages - although the references and other material at the end take up about 20% of that

[Daniel Patrick Fisher]

I can only guess of course, but I imagine that the ability to recognize uniqueness was a genetic mutation that gave the very earliest humanoids a distinct advantage over other species. I reason that this ability is genetic because we have had very little success teaching it to other species, even those with significant brain capacity equal to or surpassing ours. I also imagine that there may be more than one kind of logic, which is why it is necessary to define the kind of logic we primarily engage. My theory on the origin of logic could also be viewed as a theory on the mechanical structure of logic.

 

Probably the only reason to separate the laws of physics from the laws of logic is to realize that there may be some laws of physics that don't follow the laws of logic. It would certainly figure that we would be helpless to discover or understand any such deviations because of our dependance (and insistence) on the laws of our logic system. One such law of physics that doesn't particularly follow what we know to be logical is the constant speed of light, being neither additive nor subtractive regardless of the motion of it's source. We have obviously bent the laws of logic over backwards to accommodate this and have subsequently ended up with increasingly illogical pictures of reality that are difficult to explain or visualize. I don't think anyone has considered the possibility that the handicap here might be the main tool we are using to see the world. Don't get me wrong, it's an incredible tool. One that works much better than any employed by monkeys or octopi, at least in terms of manipulating the environment. If we were to embark on an attempt to imagine a fundamentally different way to see the world, it would behove us to be very clear about the basic construction of the main tool we have been using up until now.

[PeterJ]

I cannot see why the speed of light is 'illogical'. Counterintuitive yes, but not a reason to throw away our tools.

[hoola]

if anything exists without logic, I say it is the chaos, which developed a region within it of logic, which created the singularity, which created the universe, which allows this conversation to happen. This is not to say that the chaos has no internal logic in it's individual components, only that it cannot form relationships between the components. One might even consider them to be invisible to each other, each a separate tiny universe with constantly differing parameters of the internal logic states, and the close spatial interaction of two elements of chaos brings about the "freezing out" of parameters, as occaisonally, two adjacent particles just happen to exhibit the same parameters, and a coupling of states can begin...they can "see" each other and formal logic begins to take shape...a sort of "higgs" field of stability of parameters takes place...allowing logic to acquire "mass", if you will...

in continuing the thought of logic, I see logic as having created the complexity of the maths, primarily by the spatial dimensions of the "point" in the chaos it created. This point has a physical structure (spherical) as determined by the particular logic set of the 2 initial chaos particles, which describes the math symbol of PI (the relationship between circumference and diameter) that is, the never ending 3.14159....etc. This is the informational data stream that forms the maths. This data steam does not directly create the mass of the universe. I say that when it gains so much information it becomes an "Informational Black Hole", and the universe becomes a holographic projection of this information...the illusion of spatiality of the universe stems from the duality of a physical structure, the point, along the theoretical, logic based information it determined. The evolution of the universe required both primary ingredients...I see that "everything happens" within the IBH, which is a point source, which explains how some speeds can be superluminal, such as inflation, symmetry breaking entanglements, and the direct action of the speed of gravity...as there is no "distance" between the active elements of the IBH, and when logic requires superluminality to meet logic requirements in the hologram, in these special cases, the demands of logic must be met...

Edited April 17, 2014 by hoola

[Daniel Patrick Fisher]

I did not mean to suggest that we discard logic. My sense is that anything else we discover will enhance it, perhaps exponentially. I think chaos looks like chaos to us because we expect it to behave in a predictable pattern. A different information gathering system might give us a better chance to make sense of it. I have been intrigued for some time by savants. They seem to know things without having to "figure". When you ask them how they know what they know, they just say "It's just there". Perhaps the information they are reading exists not in their head, but out in their environment. It just happens that they have not separated themselves from that information the way we have. If you look back at how I describe the mechanics of logic, the separation is a key part of the formula.

[cladking]

Logic is as inate to nature as is math.

 

It is confused by language. You can't perform basic logical steps with bad definitions or "grammar".

 

Your ARU observation could be a step toward better recognizing logic using our language but there are quite probably more direct means used by animals or savants (and/ or generalists).

[hoola]

yes, logic is innate to nature as math. Can you imagine a time that not only this universe didn't exist yet, but neither mathematics, nor logic itself ? If there were a time before the big bang, then why not a time before logic ? Any theistic origin that started everything off, must be "god" regardless of the descriptive qualities.....so I believe there are no God or gods of supernatural qualities, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't an "irreducible sum" that started everything, only that I think of this universe as a simpler thing leading to more complex. I think the gods came about the same way as any identifiable thing in this universe, with a complex set of math algorithms. These particular algorithms are of the theoretical nature, and nearly infinte in that all possible imaginary forms of information exist within the Informational Black Hole.....along with descriptions of every real thing in the universe, and that the "real" ones are only real, as they obey the rules of logic fully, therefore of a limited nature. The imaginary ones are a selective mirror from the IBH theoretical component reflecting from our minds, a sort of "junk DNA" of the IBH, however, they are a necessary component of the string of information making up the IBH as it formed and continues to form (describe) this universe. So, our bodies are held to the bounds of logic, but not our minds...hence creativity. However, any creative thing ever done, thought or imagined, by and sentient being or machine capable of thought, I say, is an expression of the IBH, and preceeded the thinkers, and also preceeded the big bang. The universe was "on hold" until the descriptions were written out, number by number, at the fastest speed possible allowable by the constraints of logic, over perhaps trillions of years. There does seem to be a "middle ground" between the theoretical and the real, and I see the duality of light , virtual particles and other examples of quantum behavoiur as evidence for this middle ground...a quasi-reality...nonetheless, a necessary component and not an interference pattern between the 2 realms of information. This quasi-reality obeys a large portion of the rules of logic, or it would not have enough "truth" to be even imagined, let alone have a measurable effect...one might image a "6", but to imagine it requires trillions of bits of information whizzing around billions of brain cells, so therefore the "6" falls well short of logic requirement to be an imaginable thing, so theoretically impossible...thefore, I don't think we will find the logic behind some quantum puzzlements, as they are truly not logical completely, but enough to "get the job done"...in a reliable, but somewhat slipshod manner...

Edited April 20, 2014 by hoola

[cladking]

Can you imagine a time that not only this universe didn't exist yet, but neither mathematics, nor logic itself ? If there were a time before the big bang, then why not a time before logic ? Any theistic origin that started everything off, must be "god" regardless of the descriptive qualities.....so I believe there are no God or gods of supernatural qualities, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't an "irreducible sum" that started everything, only that I think of this universe as a simpler thing leading to more complex. ...

 

You have some interesting perspectives here. It's going to require a lot more thought.

 

Perhaps math is a quality of space and logic is a quality of time. This does seem somewhat poetic.

 

Maybe ARU and a universe where time is the primary component are even related subjects.

[hoola]

don't know what ARU means....but I see math as being a "quality" of logic and time not being a dimension, but rates of informational changes within a given region......no change within a given region, no time has passed...

to think further on the "irreducible sum" that started it all...I see everything as information, so that original seed bit of information was the void itself, as the first digit of one....in that there was one void, not two, or three, or a million...that is the irreducible sum...one cannot have zero, or more than one void, right? ...(the beginning of logic)....No all knowing deity or even a simpler physical phenomena, but this concept was the origin of the universe. One infinite void (somehow) leading from the seed concept of "oneness" to the chaos, to the logic, to the math information that describes the (spherical) singularity, or IBH, (enter platonism) and resultant universe as a hologram projected from the IBH...

[Daniel Patrick Fisher]

hoola,

 

You seem to have some very interesting insights on the origin of, well- everything. I didn't think I was being quite that ambitious, but perhaps there's no way to avoid it. Maybe a sort of Pandora's box. Ever since I first began working on my theory, I have been struck by the similarities between religion and science. Both seem to have come from ARU. The purely objective point of view (which is rather holy in science circles) sounds much like the one perfect god. Additionally, it was Eve wanting to possess the knowledge of the kingdom of god that caused her to eat the apple. Her curiosity made her our first scientist. And even more intriguing is that her act (the acquisition of logic), was what separated us from other species, i.e.; the garden of eden.

 

I have a question about the big band from an artist's point of view. If it was a big bang, an explosion, then there was an initial point of origin with everything fleeing that point. Wouldn't that leave a rather conspicuous empty spot somewhere? Given the force of the explosion, nothing could be headed back? I'm sure I have been told the answer to this in the past, but I have yet to make sense of it. Could you help?

 

As regards math; you can't count anything unless you can "see" it as distinct from the whole (unique). This is the heart of my premise.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Daniel Patrick Fisher

[hoola]

daniel, still don't know what ARU means...anyhow, as to the similarites between science and religion...they are all information. Science is information that has the underpinning of logic to allow it's physical expression, or measurement. Religion is information from the same source (IBH), but does not have logic to support it's physical manifestation. The quantum world is the middle ground of information with enough logic adherence to exist, but not enough to be of a stable condition. The Adam and Eve story is a story, and no more substantial than that, but that is not to say it has no substance at all, simply not enough to make it out of the "unsupported by logic" zone...The big bang was not an explosion, it should be titled as the "first expression", although I still use the Big Bang thing from habit, and it might be confusing as "expression" is not generally accepted as the title....in more specific details, it should be "first IBH expression", with the instantaneous appearance of the grape-sized infant-universe....and there no such thing as an "empty spot" in the universe...virtual particles see to that....although, one might think that between the virtual particles popping in and out of existence in deep space, there must be some tiny areas where there is at least some temporary loss of all energy flux lines....although with the universe being such a busy place, field wise, they must fleeting void volumes with sub-plank dimensional levels. I have thought about this before, in that if a certain area of deep space were to have a persistent "true void", that it would lead to a "small bang". I see the original void as having the properties necessary to create a universe, and if a persistent void should have enough time to expose the underlying Chaos, it might begin the same logic construction that started our universe. However, since the universe is a "very busy place" with all sorts of field lines running through it, only a brief window of construction time could be allowed, and the nascent logic would be "poisioned" by stray information fluxing through it, disrupting the proceedings...I have thought that this could be the mechanism behind the "gamma ray bursters", that seem to come from deep space with not apparent source.......as when the logic construction has time to pass a certain stage, the interruption is marked by a small explosion, of which we pick up the gamma rays from.....the longer the logic has to play itself out before poisioning, the bigger the explosion.....edd

Edited April 21, 2014 by hoola

[Daniel Patrick Fisher]

hoola, your rephrasing of bang to expression helped. It made me realize that all of the void would tend to be filled in every direction due in part to the effects of gravity.

 

As far as ARU goes, I don't mean to imply that we invented logic. I see it (logic) as an inherent aspect of the universe that doesn't need us to exist. What fascinated me originally about this concept of ARU is that I couldn't find any construction of rational thought that required more than this single act(s) of recognizing the (unique) object, because we must simultaneously recognize the whole and the space between in order for any of it to happen. It is essentially the irreducible sum out of which all logical observations evolve. My analogy with the construction of life was meant to demonstrate that something incredibly complex could come from something relatively simple.