Understanding Logic: A Beginner's Guide to Philosophy

[Messiah]

dunno,

logic to me just represents an understanding of cause and effect of various aspects (which is pretty much similar to common sense), but more focused on mathematics

Logic does deal with cause and effect and quantitative analysis, but it is more than that.

Logic is the correct interpretation of reality from quantitative, qualitative and positional perspectives. It is resolved from the application of observations and definitions which result in conclusions which fit the parameters of all observations and definitions simultaneously - like an equation solved for all variables.

It is a human function - and as such it is porne to eroror.

 

[Loren Booda]

And prone to disagreement.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Cause And Effect

Can logic consider the possibility that any common membrane of which our universe is comprised might holistically, actively, and continuously pulsate in sync with the building block strings with which physicists’ hypotheses presently seem so enamored? If so, might the apparent sequences of events that we see over time be the results of an animating puppet master who is only limited by the parameters of the strings? If so, it would seem that our experiences and logic might lead us to understand some of the parameters of the strings, but not necessarily the entirety of any vision or function that animates them.

 

[quantumdude]

Can logic consider the possibility that any common membrane of which our universe is comprised might holistically, actively, and continuously pulsate in sync with the building block strings with which physicists’ hypotheses presently seem so enamored? If so, might the apparent sequences of events that we see over time be the results of an animating puppet master who is only limited by the parameters of the strings? If so, it would seem that our experiences and logic might lead us to understand some of the parameters of the strings, but not necessarily the entirety of any vision or function that animates them.

I think you might like this:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0011/0011065.pdf

Also, follow the references to Tegmark, who argues along the same lines.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Lawyers #!$*^@*&!

I am only a dumb lawyer who falls towards the lower levels that are acceptable to Mensa. So, I apologize that I can only guess that you would have me refer to page 17, paragraphs 1 and 2. If so, they give me a vague, analogous feel for an application, but I am not getting direct relevance.

(I will see if I can find M. Tegmark, Annals Phys 270, 1 (1998) [gr-qc/9704009] on line.)

 

[Messiah]

Can logic consider the possibility that any common membrane of which our universe is comprised might holistically, actively, and continuously pulsate in sync with the building block strings with which physicists’ hypotheses presently seem so enamored? If so, might the apparent sequences of events that we see over time be the results of an animating puppet master who is only limited by the parameters of the strings? If so, it would seem that our experiences and logic might lead us to understand some of the parameters of the strings, but not necessarily the entirety of any vision or function that animates them.

...And if the puppet master was a carpenter, is it not possible the pulsating of the strings may only be the throbbing of his thumb, which he (or Thor) hit with a hammer.

Sorry - just trying to be cuticle

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Thor'ism

Of interest would be whether Thor'ism, or whatever may be your philosophy of values, would apply Occam's Razor towards advocating values that could be asserted as reasonably consistent moral guidelines, or whether it would get bogged down in some totalitarian hammer fetish. If it only provided general moral precepts, I doubt it would be inconsistent with string theory. Do Thor'ists take their refreshments with self playing musical violins, as in Beauty and the Beast?

 

[Messiah]

Of interest would be whether Thor'ism, or whatever may be your philosophy of values, would apply Occam's Razor towards advocating values that could be asserted as reasonably consistent moral guidelines, or whether it would get bogged down in some totalitarian hammer fetish. If it only provided general moral precepts, I doubt it would be inconsistent with string theory. Do Thor'ists take their refreshments with self playing musical violins, as in Beauty and the Beast?

Did you know "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" is actually Occam's recommendation for birth control?

Thor'ists have no morals, only instincts - no strings attached (they are rather quarky in that regard).

And as for refreshments, they frequently get hammered and enjoy the self playing violins during the light show.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Thor

Do Thor'ists have any consistent grounds for arguing pro or con about any political choice, other than immediate, base, personal instincts? Are there differences among pure, literalistic Thor'ists and enlightened Thor'ists? Visionary or "enlightened" instincts? Why, or why not? Do Thor'ists articulate how we should address concerns about any political or business decisions? What about decisons that affect the environment? Or whether or not to go to war? To engage in nuclear non-proliferation efforts? To provide aid during famine? To respect social investments in arts or traditions?

Do Thor'ists rationalize their concerns as correctly instinctual, but others' efforts to ascertain grounds for moral parameters as folly? Do Thor'ists appreciate art other than undisturbed nature? What is undisturbed nature?

Making light of value philosophy can certainly be entertaining, but is it instinctual? Is making a good beer or a good joke instinctual? Do Thor'ists distinguish between good and bad beer?

Do skeptics seek truth by testing all approaches, under an assumption that one might remain that will be immune from denigration from all approaches? Or, is it a skeptic's truth that there is no truth? Do Thor'ists think no one of old appreciated that Thor was only a metaphor? Is rationalizing or metaphorizing choices instinctual?

Can Thor occasionally appreciate the Easter Bunny? Or, can logic and observation answer either or both all our questions and all our needs about cause and effect? Is there a logical basis for assuming the validity of logic in answering all questions and needs? Or, as we approach the outer reaches of science and values, is it **possible that some of our underlying assumptions about the nature of cause and effect may be found wanting**? At some points in time and space, might we need or be entitled to "invent ourselves" and take charge of our own answers? In fact, is that what Thor'ists sometimes instinctively do?

 

[Messiah]

Do Thor'ists have any consistent grounds for arguing pro or con about any political choice, other than immediate, base, personal instincts? Are there differences among pure, literalistic Thor'ists and enlightened Thor'ists? Visionary or "enlightened" instincts? Why, or why not? Do Thor'ists articulate how we should address concerns about any political or business decisions? What about decisons that affect the environment? Or whether or not to go to war? To engage in nuclear non-proliferation efforts? To provide aid during famine? To respect social investments in arts or traditions?

Actually most thor'ists are libertarians

Do Thor'ists rationalize their concerns as correctly instinctual, but others' efforts to ascertain grounds for moral parameters as folly? Do Thor'ists appreciate art other than undisturbed nature? What is undisturbed nature?

dirt

Making light of value philosophy can certainly be entertaining, but is it instinctual? Is making a good beer or a good joke instinctual? Do Thor'ists distinguish between good and bad beer?

OK...OK...Now you've gone TOO FAR - You know as well as I there IS NO BAD BEER ! ! !

Do skeptics seek truth by testing all approaches, under an assumption that one might remain that will be immune from denigration from all approaches? Or, is it a skeptic's truth that there is no truth? Do Thor'ists think no one of old appreciated that Thor was only a metaphor? Is rationalizing or metaphorizing choices instinctual?

have you browsed Theory of Reciprocity

Can Thor occasionally appreciate the Easter Bunny? Or, can logic and observation answer either or both all our questions and all our needs about cause and effect? Is there a logical basis for assuming the validity of logic in answering all questions and needs? Or, as we approach the outer reaches of science and values, is it **possible that some of our underlying assumptions about the nature of cause and effect may be found wanting**? At some points in time and space, might we need or be entitled to "invent ourselves" and take charge of our own answers? In fact, is that what Thor'ists sometimes instinctively do?

I met the Easter Bunny this very morning - he was DELICIOUS. And yes, cause and effect is not the end-all answer to the phenomenon of existence. And I have always continuously strived to re-invent myself. . . today I am an Oldsmobile.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Reciprocity, Balance, and Will

Messiah, aka Thor: Thanks for the reference to In The Beginning, by John P. Mcnally, 2003, at http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/genesis.htm . To quote from it:

“But existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is being, itself. Before something can change - act or be acted upon - it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a function of existence. This is the very antithesis of the premise that existence is a function of cause and effect.
….
The principle of cause and effect is, itself, evolved from a far more fundamental phenomenon commonly called the balance of nature. Balance is evident throughout the very fabric of the Universe.”

**************

To comment, I do feel more comfortable thinking about existence from a perspective of balance, subject to three main qualifications:

Firstly, and lately, I intuit that the very process of working from an assumption that there may have been a beginning might drive new discovery, even if the assumption itself may ultimately not be falsifiable.

Secondly, balance seems to require, from at least one perspective, that offsetting forces are equivalent. But, from another perspective, why would not the very existence of the system of balance itself play, at least to some extent, an indeterminate role in our equations, measurements and observations? Under chaos theory, not much indeterminacy at all is needed in order to afford room for vastly different results in complex systems---such as human consciousness.

When we observe associated sequential patterns, they will often appear to have significantly reliable predictive value. In shorthand, we might say that one pattern “causes” the other. However, from a different perspective, we might intuit that the contemporaneous agent of cause may have actually been much wider.

Of course, that intuition is not particularly helpful in celebrating our day to day lives or our applications of beer drinking technologies. But, it may be helpful in leaving more room for faith in values. I am not smart enough to convey why that room for faith seems so important. But, John Stuart Mill was an astute fellow, and, if I recall correctly, he labored under depression for quite some time, which he attributed, at least in part, to being in despair about the concept of determinism.

It is for “God” and you—certainly not me—to look into your heart of hearts and know upon what basis, if any, you divide good from evil. For those who believe they are able to make good choices without ever needing a spiritual basis, more power to them. Many claim that power. However, any managing of society apparently necessitates managing many more who need spiritual beliefs to light their ways to moral decisions and meaningful lives. As Mister Rogers quoted of Saint-Exupery, from The Little Prince, “L’essential est invisible pour les yeux.” [See http://www.genderpsychology.org/girl/little_prince.html.; http://www.earthrays.com/.]

Regardless of proof, merely *leaving open the possibility* that we are connected to a fundamental category of spiritual essence might foster a view of the Golden Rule as more a matter of enlightened self interest than a matter of selflessness.

Thirdly, given perfect balance, why could not a perspective of synchronized movement, manifested through all matter, including ourselves, be considered as an expression of a higher will in which our expressions are participatory---*without in any way stepping on science’s turf?* Given perfect balance, why suppose that we lack even vicarious participation in effecting choices? (I forget his name, but I think the man behind Bell Helicopter might have some mathematical way of viewing free will as being at right angles with something like balance.)

At present, that seems to work for me. My “sister,” Alice, however, is in Stringland, where, consistent with Fave patterns of Sysverse, the Wilance of Identarity is Votracted by Beliefcentities into Grulignment against Nothsets. Her Valutons bend through Practals towards Spiritilation and into Chodimensions that are attached to Mindbranes, leading her towards infinite Artropy.

 

[jammieg]

Logic refines truth and dismisses falsity.

 

[Messiah]

Messiah, aka Thor: Thanks for the reference to In The Beginning, by John P. Mcnally, 2003, at http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/genesis.htm . To quote from it:

“But existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is being, itself. Before something can change - act or be acted upon - it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a function of existence. This is the very antithesis of the premise that existence is a function of cause and effect.
….
The principle of cause and effect is, itself, evolved from a far more fundamental phenomenon commonly called the balance of nature. Balance is evident throughout the very fabric of the Universe.”

**************

To comment, I do feel more comfortable thinking about existence from a perspective of balance, subject to three main qualifications:

Firstly, and lately, I intuit that the very process of working from an assumption that there may have been a beginning might drive new discovery, even if the assumption itself may ultimately not be falsifiable.

If existence had a 'beginning' then existence is - by definition - a process. Process is nothing more than change. But, before you can have change you must have existence. A process cannot preceed itself, hence existence cannot be a process and there was no 'beginning'.

Secondly, balance seems to require, from at least one perspective, that offsetting forces are equivalent. But, from another perspective, why would not the very existence of the system of balance itself play, at least to some extent, an indeterminate role in our equations, measurements and observations? Under chaos theory, not much indeterminacy at all is needed in order to afford room for vastly different results in complex systems---such as human consciousness.

Forces are a result of change. Forces are always equivalent according to Newton's law . . and even the structure of a mathematical equation. But I contend that not only are forces equivalently opposed, but qualitative values are also equal and opposite. Qualities - not forces.

Chaos . . . certainly it exists. Within the finite volume of each entity there are an infinite number of points. Each point has a qualitative value which acts and reacts as part of the whole as a variable. An infinite selection of variables constitutes randomness - certainly a randomness within the parameters of the quality in question - but still a form of chaos if you will.

When we observe associated sequential patterns, they will often appear to have significantly reliable predictive value. In shorthand, we might say that one pattern “causes” the other. However, from a different perspective, we might intuit that the contemporaneous agent of cause may have actually been much wider.

Again - an infinite variety of variables within and without the boundary of any given subject. Everything reacts to both itself and everything in its environment (which is the infinite Universe).

Of course, that intuition is not particularly helpful in celebrating our day to day lives or our applications of beer drinking technologies. But, it may be helpful in leaving more room for faith in values. I am not smart enough to convey why that room for faith seems so important. But, John Stuart Mill was an astute fellow, and, if I recall correctly, he labored under depression for quite some time, which he attributed, at least in part, to being in despair about the concept of determinism.

There can be no determinism when every element has a degree of randomness. True that outcomes are constrained by the parameters of the given quality or attributes of the subject, but they are not totally predictable. There is a wide RANGE of possible outcomes in the set.

It is for “God” and you—certainly not me—to look into your heart of hearts and know upon what basis, if any, you divide good from evil. For those who believe they are able to make good choices without ever needing a spiritual basis, more power to them. Many claim that power. However, any managing of society apparently necessitates managing many more who need spiritual beliefs to light their ways to moral decisions and meaningful lives. As Mister Rogers quoted of Saint-Exupery, from The Little Prince, “L’essential est invisible pour les yeux.” [See http://www.genderpsychology.org/girl/little_prince.html.; http://www.earthrays.com/.]

Regardless of proof, merely *leaving open the possibility* that we are connected to a fundamental category of spiritual essence might foster a view of the Golden Rule as more a matter of enlightened self interest than a matter of selflessness.

Thirdly, given perfect balance, why could not a perspective of synchronized movement, manifested through all matter, including ourselves, be considered as an expression of a higher will in which our expressions are participatory---*without in any way stepping on science’s turf?* Given perfect balance, why suppose that we lack even vicarious participation in effecting choices? (I forget his name, but I think the man behind Bell Helicopter might have some mathematical way of viewing free will as being at right angles with something like balance.)

The Universe is omnipotent - it contains ALL power. It is; however, as omniscient as it is dumb - and all degrees in between.

At present, that seems to work for me. My “sister,” Alice, however, is in Stringland, where, consistent with Fave patterns of Sysverse, the Wilance of Identarity is Votracted by Beliefcentities into Grulignment against Nothsets. Her Valutons bend through Practals towards Spiritilation and into Chodimensions that are attached to Mindbranes, leading her towards infinite Artropy.

Don't you just HATE IT when that happens. X-lax seems to help. I got over it by dipping my pinky into moulten lead.

 

[honestrosewater]

For those of us who are still learning and understanding philosophy, can we differentiate logic in the most simple terms?

(Side note[skippable ]-"Differentiate" can be used in both a transitive and intransitive sense, so I think, in that respect, the sentence is correct. Though Kerrie could mean "can we differentiate logic from other branches of philosophy?", I assume that by "differentiate" Kerrie means "to express the specific distinguishing quality of", which would be the transitive sense, if my understanding of transitive is correct. I would guess that Kerrie chose "differentiate" over "define" since "differentiate" better implies a *unique* defintion, as opposed to a possibly ambiguous one. However, I would change "most simple" to "simplest", since I don't think Kerrie means "the greatest number of simple terms". This side note is not completely irrelevant to the question, but I'll leave it as a side note anyway...)

I'm surpised no one has said, "Logic is what logicians do." The mathematicians were all over that one

The question seems to be asking for an *introductory* definition. The way many of you, who are familiar with logic, would define logic *to yourselves* will likely include terms that are more precise and complex than their "common usage" counterparts.
This question also reminds me of a Feynman anecdote which goes something like: A reporter asked Feynman if he could explain, in one sentence, why he was awarded the Nobel prize. Feynman replied that if he could explain it in one sentence, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel prize.
With all that in mind, the best answer I have is this:
Logic begins by removing ambiguity from your thoughts and the language you use to express them, because logic also begins with the letter "L".

Happy thoughts
Rachel

BTW the subtitle of the Logic forum is "How should we reason" :)

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Logic: Model of good-thinking. I don't know how right he was, but my lecturer told me it is just a model of good thinking that humans do - and as a model it also has its limitations. I personally think that we 'impose' logic on ourselves too much. Its best when it comes naturally - but not all of us can do that, that easily.

 

[kioria]

Hmm... I'd say Logic involves dismissal of falsity, a clear and precise clarification between truth and false - in the event of complexities arising, the logic still exists as truth or false. Here are some quotes I found when I was learning Logics and Proofs:

"Logic is a science of the necessary laws of thought, without which no employment of the understanding and the reason takes place" - Immanuel Kant, 1785

And branching off Logic,

"Hypothetical reasoning implies the subordination of the real to the realm of the possible..." - Jean Piaget, 1972

"Contrariwise" continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be. if it were so, it would be. but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." - Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Although the last quote isn't as definitive as the other two, I think it really gives off the meaning of logic. It doesn't define them all, but it certainly does, and to a very precisiveness, define a subsystem of the logic.