Are Logical Rules Universally Applicable?

[computerphys]

Hi again, everybody. I have been mulling over lately some important assumptions we made when thinking, but suddenly I realize I cannot justify them all. Here is one of them:

Supposing there exists parallel universes, would their physics laws obey our logical rules?

Or rephrasing it: Could exist something illogical in this one or another universe? Is that possible?

Or another rephrase: Are mathematics nonsensical in other universes?

I feel much more comfortable thinking that the Universe (including parallel universes) always behaves respecting the rules of logic (and thus mathematical rules), but I cannot find any reason to justify that. So, can I conclude this assumption is just kind of a religious act of faith, or a personal preference?

Logic is an entire philosophical branch. Is it right to say that it is based on an unjustifiable hypothesis? We suppose logical rules are universal, but why? Can we be sure about that? Based upon what?

Thanks for any hints about it.

 

[granpa]

did you take geometry in high school?
if so then you should know about postulates and theorems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem

 

[computerphys]

did you take geometry in high school?
if so then you should know about postulates and theorems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem

I know about them, but the problem here is the link between them. To get a theorem from an axiom you need to apply logical reasoning. And nobody uses to deny logic, because it is quite obvious. Nevertheless, I cannot explain how can we be so sure about logic. There is no logic to yield logic.

Is it absurd to ask about the origin of logic?

How can rational people explain where logic comes from?

Can we be absolutely sure about the reliability of logic in this universe and any other? I am, but not in a rational way but in a faithful or dogmatic way. I just see it quite obvious but I cannot explain why. Can you?

 

[granpa]

my intuition says that it all boils down in the end to definitions and tautologies.

someone else might tell you something different though.

 

[computerphys]

my intuition says that it all boils down in the end to definitions and tautologies.

someone else might tell you something different though.

So, logic is true by definition. It sounds to me like dogma, isn't it?

If someone, for example, says that in a parallel universe logical rules could be defied ... which would be your reply? Acceptance, reluctancy or rejection. Based upon what arguments?

Mine would be rejection, but by no arguments. Is that faith?

 

[apeiron]

So, logic is true by definition. It sounds to me like dogma, isn't it?

If someone, for example, says that in a parallel universe logical rules could be defied ... which would be your reply? Acceptance, reluctancy or rejection. Based upon what arguments?

Mine would be rejection, but by no arguments. Is that faith?

What you are asking about is the basis of logic. Many have thought about this and I like the Peircean approach best.

You can start with the idea that absolutely anything is possible. So logical or illogical, the distinction does not inherently exist.

But then what comes to be, what does come to persist, must obey the constraint of being self-consistent. It would have to cohere and work synergistically as a system - otherwise there would be no "system". ie: something that seems lawful, regular...logical.

To be illogical, a world would have to lack global consistency. But a world in interaction would eventually knock against itself in every manner possible to arrive at some kind of global equilbrium or state of consistency. It would self-organise to arrive at some prevailing state of order (and even chaos is an exact form of order - disorder expressed evenly across all possible scales of a system). So worlds must become logical, even if they don't have to start out that way.

Now this might not be what you have in mind as "logical". But what do you have in mind as a fundamental logical fact?

You could make the standard response of 1+1=2. Now that is true as a mathematical fact based on axioms. It would also seem true as a physical fact in all worlds organised enough, globally coherent enough, so that there are stable, persistent, examples of bounded one-ness and simple constructive, additive, actions.

So what seems a strong truth given mathematical axioms, becomes rapidly more qualified when we talk about facts as a physical necessity. We can begin to see the need for deeper facts such as the fact that things can develop, that things can persist. Which is where we then get to the importance of a global constraint of self-consistency as being a very primary fact that answers the question of "what is logical?".

 

[Hurkyl]

So, logic is true by definition. It sounds to me like dogma, isn't it?

All praise the holy lexicon!

But seriously, logic defines what it means to be "true", so it would be pretty silly if that definition was incompatible with logic!

 

[computerphys]

... the Peircean approach best. You can start with the idea that absolutely anything is possible. So logical or illogical, the distinction does not inherently exist. But then what comes to be, what does come to persist, must obey the constraint of being self-consistent.

That is new for me. Thanks a lot for mentioning it. Nevertheless I feel quite uncomfortable about this idea, because I cannot render an illogical world connected with a logical one, through time, or evolution. An illogical world, as I understand it, should be a meaningless, nonsensical and indescribable world due to its lack of coherence.

So, this approach accepts the possibility of existence of illogical things. Right? Nevertheless my intuition, or call it faith, tells me that an illogical thing cannot exist. And that is the point I am trying to expose and ask here: Being a rational person (meaning that my conclusions are derived from logical rules), can I accept the existence of certain illogical things (even disconnected to our world, in some kind of parallel universe)?

Accepting them wouldn't it imply my logic is wrong, or at least non-universal?

Doing philosophy and science it is a prior condition to be rational, to respect logical thinking. It is not right to say then, that an illogical world is unacceptable under a scientific and philosophical point of view?

Philosophy and Science are based upon rationalism, the same I try to be myself, trusting in logic. But I cannot explain why. I can only feel my rejection to considering an illogical thing or world. The only similar thing to an explanation I find is an anthropic point of view: the world must be entirely logical for me (or human being) to be able to understand it.

I think it was Einstein who said: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.". It is a way of saying that we have not any reason to explain why logic always rules. So, if we cannot explain it, we must accept it as an hypothesis, axiom, starting point, dogma or act of faith. Right?

 

[Hurkyl]

Philosophy and Science are based upon rationalism,

Science is based upon a mix of empiricism and rationalism -- pure reason is not science!



One thing to keep in mind is that "logical" tends to be used more as a synonym for "intuitive" or "can be rationalized (in an 'acceptable')" way, rather than the literal meaning "of or pertaining to logic".

 

[apeiron]

An illogical world, as I understand it, should be a meaningless, nonsensical and indescribable world due to its lack of coherence.

I see what you mean but this other realm, this set of initial conditions, would actually be taken as neither logical nor illogical in itself. It is just a raw potential (a vagueness in Peircean logic). Or indeterminate as QM might put it.

So the story would go that in the beginning there is just a potential that could produce anything. Fluctuations in all sorts of directions. And to start with, everything would be as logical as it was illogical. There would be nothing, no wider established context, to decide the matter either way. But as some prevailing state coalesced, it would define what is logical (that which hangs together as a global self-organised state) and then also what was illogical (any continuing fluctuations, these would be squeezed out of the picture as a matter of global constraint).

Take as an analogy an ideal gas, a collection of particles in a box that has arrived at a global equilibrium temperature. There is an average prevailing kinetic energy. This is the "logical" state of particles. They will be constrained to some gaussian average motion. Then insert into the box a much colder or hotter particle. The kinetics of this particle would be "illogical" - counter to the natural motion of the system. However because all particles are in free interaction, the new particle will quickly be tamed. It will be a fluctuation constrained to the prevailing ambience.

Or another analogy is a sum over histories approach to QM. Anything is possible, but most of the possibilities are self-cancelling if there is the global constraint as represented by the familiar principle of least action.

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

Many people indeed say about QM that indeterminancy is "illogical". But I am saying what is logical, what is illogical, comes only after a potential has become constrained to state. And these kinds of states are in fact self-organising. The observer is created by the act of observing, effectively.

 

[computerphys]

Science is based upon a mix of empiricism and rationalism -- pure reason is not science!

I accept the correction, although at least I find one exception to it, the "top-bottom" approach, or High-Road to do physics (S.L. Glashow) seems to me like pure reason at science scope.

But the important thing yet is the question: Is an illogical world unacceptable under a scientific and philosophical point of view?

 

[computerphys]

So the story would go that in the beginning there is just a potential that could produce anything. Fluctuations in all sorts of directions. And to start with, everything would be as logical as it was illogical. There would be nothing, no wider established context, to decide the matter either way. But as some prevailing state coalesced, it would define what is logical (that which hangs together as a global self-organised state) and then also what was illogical (any continuing fluctuations, these would be squeezed out of the picture as a matter of global constraint).

If I understand it correctly, this means logic is a by-product/epiphenomenon/result of certain physical process at certain time "in the beginning". So, you need physics laws plus time to get logic. But physics laws are based on logic. So logic is created upon logic. Is that logical?

P.S.: Do we really need logic to be created?

 

[computerphys]

One thing to keep in mind is that "logical" tends to be used more as a synonym for "intuitive" or "can be rationalized (in an 'acceptable')" way, rather than the literal meaning "of or pertaining to logic".

It is true, but I find a common meaning for both: logical meaning there is no conflict between two truths. Considering that, it is right to say something is logical (rational, acceptable) when it is not in conflict with what we assume to be true, that including the Aristotelian syllogistic logic (pertaining to logic).

Sorry if I said something wrong, because I am a noob in logic.

So the question again, would be:

Is an illogical (irrational or non-syllogistic) world unacceptable under a scientific and philosophical point of view? and why?

 

[apeiron]

If I understand it correctly, this means logic is a by-product/epiphenomenon/result of certain physical process at certain time "in the beginning". So, you need physics laws plus time to get logic. But physics laws are based on logic. So logic is created upon logic. Is that logical?

P.S.: Do we really need logic to be created?

I tried earlier to distinguish two senses of logic. One is a mathematical idea, a particular established model of causality. If this, then that.

The other is our feeling that the world operates in a globally regular fashion.

So we have a model of causality (and why not many such models?), and an assumption from observation that the world we are modelling is causally regular. The same "logic" must apply everywhere - even in alternate or parallel universes.

You have to make this basic distinction between the modeller and the modeled to see that the modeller just might have got his facts wrong in what he has been assuming. And also that the model does not itself have to exist for the modeled to exist.

So I was saying forget about the modeller for the moment. Let reality start in a way that is pre-logical. Then whatever emerges as a self-consistent world - one with a regular global self-constraining structure - would quite naturally define what is "logical". And equally, what is then "illogical".

Now we as modellers are the result of a world having come into being. Can we look back and say that it was "logical" that the world is the way it is. Was there only one possible outcome from a sum over histories of all possible self-consistent developments from states of pure potential, pure and unbounded indeterminancy?

A variety of views could be argued from here.

But it would help if you knew more of the history of the development of the idea of logic itself perhaps.

For instance, Aristotle took a systems approach based on the four causes. And your question could be answered by saying that "to be logical" is the final cause of reality. Logic does not have to be there in the initiating conditons (the substantial and efficient causes in Aristotle's book). Instead it is the teleological goal towards which the whole process of development was tending (the formal and final causes).

You are thinking of logic in terms of syllogisms and boolean algebra probably. Particular mathematical algorithms that are used to "do logic" in computational fashion. But this is just a subset of logic as a subject.

Reality clearly has its emergent, self-organised, regularities or its "logical rules". Do you think that our formal models of logic have captured all those rules, or captured their full richness?

We know from people's bafflement with QM that this cannot be. We know from metaphysics and systems science that there are larger models of logic that have yet to be formalised (in a way they can be implemented simply as a "machine").

So getting back to the Peircean approach (which is also that of Aristotle, Anaximander, etc). Logic, laws, habits, regularities - these are all stuff that emerges as reality develops into crisp and persistent being. They begin tentative, and grow strong and hard with time. Vague constraint becomes very firm constraint.

Looking back, we may get the feeling that things always had to turn out the way they did, at least in the broad or fundamental sense. We can say logic was reality's guiding purpose. In the beginning, it looked as though anything might have happened (the illogical was a possible outcome). But by the end, only the logical could make sense.

Your way of looking at it insists that only crisp beginnings can lead to crisp outcomes. There has to be something definite at the start. Logic and laws and even time and space can't just simply coalesce into being in a developmental fashion.

But that is just a particular model of how things happen. Peirce and others have worked with a different mental model of how logic arises into being. This is why Peirce, for example, said abduction is prior to induction or deduction.

Human technology of course is completely based on the machine model of logic, not a holistic, organic, systems model. We live surrounded by cars, computers and the other fruits of a particular way of thinking. And it must be this that continues to blind people to the broader models that have always existed in philosophy.

 

[computerphys]

... your question could be answered by saying that "to be logical" is the final cause of reality ... It is the teleological goal towards which the whole process of development was tending ... We can say logic was reality's guiding purpose. In the beginning, it looked as though anything might have happened (the illogical was a possible outcome). But by the end, only the logical could make sense.

Yes, I think I understand this approach. Thanks for the explanation. It is well explained and very interesting. But I still find a problem here. You are describing an evolution along time, from an illogical state to a final logical state. If this evolution is a process based on rules, and these rules are fulfilling some kind of logic, then you are starting from logic to end up again in logic. This approach uses logic to create logic. Is not that absurd?

Your way of looking at it insists that only crisp beginnings can lead to crisp outcomes. There has to be something definite at the start. Logic and laws and even time and space can't just simply coalesce into being in a developmental fashion.

But that is just a particular model of how things happen. Peirce and others have worked with a different mental model of how logic arises into being. This is why Peirce, for example, said abduction is prior to induction or deduction.

Yes, I agree with you. There are at least two points of view here:

1.- Mine: logic is universal and do not evolve in time.

2.- Yours and Peirce's: logic is not universal and creates/evolves along time.

But this is my question:

* Choosing between approach #1 or #2 is just a matter of faith?

Or rephrasing it:

* Is an illogical world unacceptable under a scientific and philosophical point of view? Is there any scientific or philosophical argument against/in favor of approaches #1 or #2?

 

[apeiron]

You are describing an evolution along time, from an illogical state to a final logical state.

No, it is about an evolution from a pre-logic state to a state where there is logic becomes defined by what can exist (and so what is illogical is also now clearly defined as what cannot exist).

This is a crucially different view. So we could say that in the first moments of reality, it may have been going in many directions, some which in retrospect were "illogical". But rapidly - as in a phase transition - all these other tentative directions got wiped up as a prevailing state coalesced.

Following this approach, you might ask could the universe, or multiverse, have the condensed matter physics equivalent of frustrated domains - bounded patches where a different logic froze out locally?

So even following this different view of how reality comes to be, there are a variety of sub-scenarios to explore.

But it is not about a developmental gradient from illogical to logical, instead it is about a separation of a pre-logic potential into a reality that crisply exist because it was found to be logical - globally coherent - and another part of reality that does not exist with equal definiteness, because it is illogical and so cannot hang together,

* Choosing between approach #1 or #2 is just a question of faith?

Or rephrasing it:

* Is an illogical world unacceptable under a scientific and philosophical point of view? Is there any scientific or philosophical argument against/in favor of approaches #1 or #2?

If they are different models, then we would decide on the basis of which seemed the most useful. And there is no reason not to use both.

If I wanted to build a machine, I would use the logic of machines. If I wanted to build an organism, I would have to use the logic of organisms. But then organisms develop, they don't get built. Which is why I would talk instead about developing an organism.

It is horses for courses. But when it comes to the cosmic-scale questions, we know machine analogies fail. Developmental approaches look far more promising to me as a modelling language.

 

[computerphys]

No, it is about an evolution from a pre-logic state ... it is not about a developmental gradient from illogical to logical

Ok. Understood. If I say pre-logic instead of illogical and discontinuous instead of gradient, I still find the same problem here:

You are describing a discontinuous evolution along time, from a pre-logic state to a final logical state. If this discontinuous evolution is a process based on rules, and these rules are fulfilling some kind of logic, then you are starting from logic to end up again in logic. This approach uses logic to create logic. Is not that absurd?

there is no reason not to use both

Are you meaning it is right to say that:
- #1 logic is eternal and at the same time #2 logic was created at the beginning
- #1 logic is universal and at the same time #2 logic is local, at least in time

Is not that also absurd?

 

[apeiron]

Ok. Understood. If I say pre-logic instead of illogical and discontinuous instead of gradient, I still find the same problem here:

You are describing a discontinuous evolution along time, from a pre-logic state to a final logical state. If this discontinuous evolution is a process based on rules, and these rules are fulfilling some kind of logic, then you are starting from logic to end up again in logic. This approach uses logic to create logic. Is not that absurd?

Are you meaning it is right to say that:
- #1 logic is eternal and at the same time #2 logic was created at the beginning
- #1 logic is universal and at the same time #2 logic is local, at least in time

Is not that also absurd?

I see you think it is absurd, but I simply don't.

I have no problem thinking of rules gradually emerging and so gradually organisation taking hold.

Ever heard of genetic algorithms or neural networks? Even computer science has explored self-organisation and evolution as a way to grow a "logic".

 

[computerphys]

Ever heard of genetic algorithms or neural networks? Even computer science has explored self-organisation and evolution as a way to grow a "logic".

I can understand neural networks and genetic algorithms are systems capable of finding or approaching a desired algorithm, but never as a way to grow a logic.

Neural networks and genetic algorithms are systems that are built upon logical rules, the same as Peirce's approach, if I am not wrong. So, logic is there before they begin to run.

The logic that for example something that it is true cannot be false at the same time cannot be created without falling in the absurd. Just thinking about a pre-logic status where this rule fails is absurd, because this very rule fails and fulfills at the same time, so we cannot describe the status in a meaningful way.

So, if we try to avoid the absurd, we cannot explain neither render the process of logic being created. Do you agree with it?

By the way, do you avoid the absurd?

 

[apeiron]

The logic that for example something that it is true cannot be false at the same time cannot be created without falling in the absurd.

You say this, but Peirce indeed said that vagueness (what I am describing here as pre-logic, a state of indeterminancy) is exactly something to which the principle of contradiction does not appy.

http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/peichi.htm
http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/lane/p-prilan.htm

Aristotle too made the point with his example of the battle of salamis. The middle has to be excluded for it to be divided into the true vs the not true.

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=...=persian fleet excluded middle battle&f=false

 

[computerphys]

Peirce indeed said that vagueness (what I am describing here as pre-logic, a state of indeterminacy) is exactly something to which the principle of contradiction does not apply

Assuming that the principle of contradiction does not apply to vagueness, then we can say perfectly the contrary by that logic, that the principle of contradiction does apply to vagueness. Right?

This is exactly the act of faith I am talking about since the beginning of this thread. You believe in fuzzy logic, while I believe in standard logic. There are not valid reasons to agree or disagree about the foundations of both logical systems. So, it is just our personal preference what make us fuzzy logic compatible (your case) or standard logic compatible (my case).

I cannot persuade you to see that fuzzy logic is wrong because contradiction is not a problem in fuzzy world (and reductio ad absurdum is my only tool). And you cannot persuade me to see that standard logic is incomplete, because if I try to consider a third state for a property (true, false and fuzzy) then I suddenly fall into nihilism. And again, my personal preference or call it faith rejects nihilism, absurdness or contradiction.

So, this is my conclusion: I agree with you that there are two logical systems, but faith is the only thing we have to choose one of them as the basis of our reasoning. Isn't it?

 

[apeiron]

So, this is my conclusion: I agree with you that there are two logical systems, but faith is the only basis for us to choose one of them as the basis of our reasoning. Isn't it?

But what about my point that either system is simply a model? So a choice does not have to be made on the basis of truth (which is always ultimately unknowable, and so can only be assumed as a matter of faith) but instead on demonstrable utility. If the model gets stuff done, it is good enough!

And as I said, I don't claim a need to chose one over the other. In fact, I see them as formally complementary and so both are needed for that reason alone (though that further claim does now have more the ring of faith I would agree).

 

[apeiron]

Assuming that the principle of contradiction does not apply to vagueness, then we can say perfectly the contrary by that logic, that the principle of contradiction does apply to vagueness. Right?

On this point, I think the idea here is that vagueness is that to which no principles of logic apply. All possible principles still exist as potentials and no principles yet exist as actuals.

So no, contradiction is just one of the infinity of principles that do not apply. Although it later emerges as a principle that does generally apply.

 

[computerphys]

You are really fast in answering. Wow. How do you make it?

But what about my point that either system is simply a model? So a choice does not have to be made

Not making a choice is a way of saying you believe in fuzzy logic. Because the only way of accepting both logical systems in a compatible way is denying the contradiction principle, and that belongs to fuzzy logic.

on the basis of truth (which is always ultimately unknowable, and so can only be assumed as a matter of faith)

Not always. Descartes' cogito ergo sum is an ultimately knowable and absolute truth.

but instead on demonstrable utility. If the model gets stuff done, it is good enough!

Ok. "Shut up and calculate!‎" What stuff can be done using fuzzy logic that couldn't be done just using standard logic?

 

[Boy@n]

Nevertheless I feel quite uncomfortable about this idea, because I cannot render an illogical world connected with a logical one, through time, or evolution. An illogical world, as I understand it, should be a meaningless, nonsensical and indescribable world due to its lack of coherence.

Why not? What about experiencing dreams? Sometimes they are logical, but often not.

What about quantum 'world'? It 'behaves' in a very illogical way compared to the world as we know it, does it not?

Perhaps our world is logical, or better say, it appears to us as logical, because our mind usually works in a that (logical) way.


Logic to me represents consistency. If something is consistent it's logical.


Also, if we say that in the very beginning of this Universe (around Plank's time) things weren't logical, nor illogical, then the fact that Universe today appears logical (via firm Universal natural laws), then this is easy to understand, that that which was illogical ceased to be and logic prevailed.

 

[computerphys]

In fact, I see them as formally complementary and so both are needed for that reason alone (though that further claim does now have more the ring of faith I would agree).

Thanks. It is a pleasure to get some definite conclusions after all. The choice of a logical system is an act of faith. Now, may I extend that a little bit more? What if I say that accordingly Philosophy and Science as systems based upon logic are ultimately based on faith?

 

[JDStupi]

The idea that certain consistent systems are based on a person's inherent dispositions or tendencies can be read about through William James, who also essentially says that we can choose what is effective at a given time. The tendencies can be said to be "faith based" but not all aspects are "faith based". We are coming here to an old empiricism vs rationalism. You choose to believe that there is a logical system underlying it all, and nature abides. Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on probability? On the Quantum? On evolution?

 

[computerphys]

Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on probability? On the Quantum? On evolution?

I don't find any logical problem in probability. It is just to calculate the output given a variable input. Instead of a constant you use a parameter. I cannot find any contradiction there.

Regarding Quantum, I suppose you specially are meaning uncertainty in this case. As I understand, uncertainty is the proof that the fundamental behavior of a system is not deterministic (based on rules), so it is out of science, but not out of philosophy or metaphysics. I don't either find any logical contradiction here.

Where do logic fail at Evolution? Maybe somebody needs a new logic to explain emergent phenomena. I don't know if you are referring to that point ... but I don't feel the need to change/upgrade the standard logical system to explain an evolutionary system. What I feel it is needed is considering non-deterministic systems (R. Penrose call them something like non-Touring or non-algorithmical). This kind of systems are not in conflict with standard logic.

And finally, replying to Boy@n, yes, dreams may be out of the scope of logic. The same happens in our thoughts. It is not difficult to image something illogical, although quite awkward.

But that is not in contradiction with my assumption (act of faith) that logic beholds in physics (science) and in philosophical reasoning.

In the long run, people has to make a choice: the world is logical, or it is not. Contradiction principle is valid or it is not. I choose a logical world, but I don't know why. I cannot explain why. Indeed, I am sure it cannot be explained by any logic, because otherwise, logic would create logic, and that is absurd. So, I call it faith.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Some alternatives- mimesis; Descartes mentioned dreams particularly among errors of the senses; creation, imagination, fanatasy (e.g. Kant); empiricism; madness (Foucault’s “Madness and Civilisation”); a logical fallacy within logic so, “… this crisis in which reason is madder than madness – in which madness is more rational than reason…” (Cogito and the History of Madness, Derrida) .

 

[Boy@n]

I choose a logical world, but I don't know why. I cannot explain why.

I would not say that using logic, or not, is a choice. It is a given, the way healthy mind works. Say your brains stops functioning normally... you might start thinking you are the new Jesus, son of God who came to save human race -- to you that would be perfectly logical, but not so to others... A serial killer might find own actions logical, but not others.

IMO, logic prevails universaly because it is better for survival, better for existence - it makes all work, it enables co-existence of countless of forms, from atoms to stars, from bacteria to humans, and beyond.

I love logic in life, I love illogic in dreams as well, but if dreams would to be real, our life might not last long - only chaos and inconsistency provide no safety for life to evolve, not even lifeless systems could develop. Universe based solely on chaos would stay so eternally, unless logic emerges out of it, as happened with our dear One.

 

[computerphys]

IMO, logic prevails universaly because it is better for survival, better for existence - it makes all work, it enables co-existence of countless of forms, from atoms to stars, from bacteria to humans, and beyond.

Yes, I agree with you. This is exactly the only pseudo-reason I've found to support a logical world against a non-logical one. But I think it is not a powerful reason, because it is very anthropocentric. Logic must exist for me to be able to understand a meaningful Universe.

If someone says to me that there exists a parallel universe where everything is chaos and no logical rules are fulfilled, I find no arguments against that idea. Nevertheless I feel a powerful rejection inside me to that point. I cannot use the anthropocentric argument against that point, because I don't live in that universe.

So logic could be better for existence, etc, but that doesn't imply it must be really universal.

If logic is not universal, that is, it coalesces along time or exists just in certain sub-universes, then, mathematics, physics and philosophy are also non-universal. Is that correct?

 

[apeiron]

Not making a choice is a way of saying you believe in fuzzy logic. Because the only way of accepting both logical systems in a compatible way is denying the contradiction principle, and that belongs to fuzzy logic.

Fuzzy logic is really just a subset of ordinary logic in my book. With vagueness, there is just pure indeterminancy rather than a statistically bounded uncertainty.

With fuzziness, you have a distribution of uncertainty about a set of microstates, but the macrostate - the global constraint - can be exactly specified. With vagueness, both micro and macro states would be undetermined.

We are not talking about a haziness or fuzziness but the most radical possible, maximal, kind of uncertainty or indeterminancy.

Well, at least I am. I agree that especially where people are talking about semantic vagueness (sorites paradox), they are thinking of fuzzy definitions with a gaussian distribution. I am talking here about a logic based on ontic vagueness where there is no boundary at all on uncertainty.

And indeed, the characteristic uncertainty that arises as the result of a development of a vagueness into some form of self-organising world is the pareto or levy distribution - we are talking powerlaws. This should be no surprise of course as self-organising development IS characterised by powerlaw statistics. And this is a logic that explains that dynamical world.

Not always. Descartes' cogito ergo sum is an ultimately knowable and absolute truth.

True. And therefore the reason why in the end I am agreeing that everything else becomes a matter of faith. The belief that we are modelling something "out there" for example. So I claim that models are justified by their utility (control over the world) and their confirmation via observation and measurement. But that in turn has to rely on my faith my impressions of a world are more than some private illusion.

Of course, in practice, I don't doubt the existence of reality, and so the need for good models, in the slightest. Cartesean doubt, while admitted, quickly becomes irrelevant.

Ok. "Shut up and calculate!‎" What stuff can be done using fuzzy logic that couldn't be done just using standard logic?

It is not fuzzy logic. It is a systems logic. And I use it for reasoning constantly. I analyse the world through its lens (much to the annoyance of almost everyone it seems ). So just read any post where I start talking about dichotomies that lead to hierarchies.

Vagueness is my story on initial conditions. Asymmetric dichotomies are my description of how initial conditions must develop to actually become something. Hierarchies are what then emerge as the persisting equilibrium outcome which results.

This is the same logical structure you will find in Anaximander's metaphysics. Aristotle's logic also covers it (though Aristotle was wrestling to separate the mechanical logic we now know from this more ancient view). Hegel had a version, though he ended with a spiral rather than a hierarchy. Peirce articulated almost the whole story but missed the vital scale aspect to it - the local~global asymmetry which is central to hierarchy theory.

Currently, I would say there are many people developing bits of the total package - feeling different parts of the same animal. So some work on vagueness, some on dichotomies, many on hierarchies. There has also been a big upsurge of interest in Peirce, which is where you will find the broadest understanding.

So this is work in progress right now.

 

[apeiron]

Also, if we say that in the very beginning of this Universe (around Plank's time) things weren't logical, nor illogical, then the fact that Universe today appears logical (via firm Universal natural laws), then this is easy to understand, that that which was illogical ceased to be and logic prevailed.

This is a good point. We are rather stretching the word "logic" here - most would treat it as essentially a mathematical notion and this thread has really been about naturalising logic, seeing it in terms of actual physical processes. But I would call the early big bang vague, and the eventual heat death of the universe crisp. That is when everything was small (and so very hot) the state of anything was radically indeterminate (as QM models). Then when everything becomes as spread out and cold as possible, the state of the universe will be as definite everywhere as it can be (dark, featureless, sitting asymptotically close to absolute zero).

So at heat death, the universe will be at its "most logical" in the sense that it will have a single prevailing global state. The second law says entropy must be maximised. And by the heat death, that becomes a certain fact.

Right now of course, the universe is still patchy and has little bits of negentropic order all over the place - especially here on earth. Life and mind are "illogical" so far as the second law is concerned. Well, that is until you step back and see that negentropy exists because it accelerates entropification - so that makes life and mind again logical. Just so long as life and mind are a passing phase on the way to the proper destiny of a heat death.

 

[computerphys]

With fuzziness, you have a distribution of uncertainty about a set of microstates, but the macrostate - the global constraint - can be exactly specified. With vagueness, both micro and macro states would be undetermined.

I find this fuzziness and vagueness quite useful to describe mind states. I see that when you build an idea inside your mind, you first have vagueness, and later fuzziness, and been very lucky you may eventually reach a crispy state of knowledge about something.

What I cannot understand is how to apply this on a physical system ruled by laws of physics and more deeply by crispy logical rules.

So logic can be built inside our mind, from vagueness to crispness but not as a physical process based on rules. That final state, when our mind has concluded logical rules, I wonder about its universality. I mean, everybody under any circumstances would end up with the same logical system than Aristotle's. Did every human civilization share always the same logical system? If it is really universal, there should be a good reason for that. Probably it is the most basic possible set of self-compatible rules or something like that. In that case, mathematics would also be universal, isn't it?

 

[apeiron]

I find this fuzziness and vagueness quite useful to describe mind states.

So do I. Indeed, I was doing mind science and it was because a machine-style logic was clearly not up to the task of modelling the mind that I eventually came across this organic, developmental approach to logic.

Note the way Peirce reverses the usual approach to logic. He started with a description of how minds develop ideas (semiosis) and then generalised it to a description of how even universes develop (so instead of the universe developing laws, he talks about it developing habits - he uses psychological terms. Which is justified by the cogito - starting explanation from what we can be most sure about).

I mean, everybody under any circumstances would end up with the same logical system than Aristotle's. Did every human civilization share always the same logical system? If it is really universal, there should be a good reason for that. Probably it is the most basic possible set of self-compatible rules or something like that. In that case, mathematics would also be universal, isn't it?

If you check all major early philosophy, then you find that they have a similar organic approach (a vagueness that dichotomises and becomes hierarchically organised). So you see in the first greek metaphysics, and also Buddhist and Taoist philosophy.

For instance, Chris Lofting has looked at a dichotomising logic in the I Ching (which is not just some fortune telling nonsense) http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/

But there are "two logics" even in the human mind.

The organic logic is how brains themselves are organised. The brain is a bunch of dichotomies leading to hierarchies. To explain the brain, we talk about attention vs habits, the ventral "what" or object recognition stream vs the dorsal "where" or spatial awareness stream, the left hemisphere focal style of processing vs the right hemisphere contextual style of processing, dopamine endogenous goal-directed attention vs norepinephrine exogenous vigilant attention...and so on and on.

But then humans also have speech. And this is based on a more machine like logic. Instead of holistic causality, there is a step by step, chain of cause and effect, style causality.

All languages are based on the same logical structure - subject-verb-object, a tale of who did what to whom. The serial nature of the speech act forces us to break the wholeness of the world up into an utterance which is based solely on effective cause (only one of Aristotle's four causes). If this, then that.

So you have an interesting situation. Our minds work organically and yet the habit of speech also means that we are used to analysing reality in mechanical terms.

The holistic view of the world is the truer - seeing the world as a whole, a web of self-organising interactions.

But the mechanical approach, while more constrained (employing only efficient cause), has its own special power because it is combinatorial and open-ended. The subject-verb-object template of a sentence is a logical statement, and it can be used to state something false as well as true.

A holistic impression of the world is restricted to being true because it is self-constraining. It does not have the freedom to be false as a sum over a collection of interactions has only one outcome, one equilibrium balance. But a logical statement is an isolate act and so can make a leap, a postulate, hypothesis or abduction, in any direction. I can say the moon is made of green cheese - the seven words are an effortless assertion. Whereas it would be very hard for me to gain an impression the moon is made of green cheese unless it actually was.

So anyway, the human mind does in fact employ two logics - the holistic logic of a mind that perceives the whole of the world about it, and then the verbal logic which humans employ to reach beyond this immediate, constrained, state of experiencing to construct a realm of the postulated, the hypothetical.

One logic has become "logic" for most people. A logic based solely on efficient cause (if this, then that). A logic in which various formal constraints (the principle of the excluded third, the principle of contradiction) are taken as granted.

But people have forgotten about (or never actually understood) that there is also then the larger embedding logic of holism, the way the mind understands reality as a whole. And this should now itself be a focus for formalisation. We can construct a model of organic logic. Aristotle indeed did this - he was separating the two kinds of logic more clearly. Peirce took the project up again in modern times. In the 1960s and 1970s, science got quite close to doing so again with systems science, hierarchy theory, ecology.

The problem is that over the past 40 years, we have had the computer revolution, the information theoretic age. Machine logic has become so culturally dominant that organic approaches are these days treated as some kind of intellectual heresy. There is only now the machine approach - efficient cause. Holism is not even tolerated.

Again, these two logics are in fact both useful. Indeed, they are complementary, they are "part of each other".

But the proper relationship is {organic {mechanical}} and not mechanical => organic.

That is, the presumption of those who think that everything can be reduced to efficient cause, machine logic, is that anything organic, anything complex, can be constructed. So we have people trying to build artificial intelligence, artificial life, using mechanical principles. It is presumed that the organic can always be "built". And so the mechanical is what is foundational.

But I am arguing that the organic is the whole story, the mechanical is the local story. The organic is Aristotle's four causes, the mechanical is just his efficient cause. So if we are relating to two logics, one is the subset of the larger.

{final, formal and material cause {efficient cause}}