What is the true nature and origin of logic?

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Maybe if I squint really hard...

What you see is just your imagination. There is no light in the system yet.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Logic.

Logic says that numbers are not language?

You have just proven the contary - that a math (in your case the number 6) is objective (=independent from human or alien existence), and that a math abstract concept (= not directly related to concrete objects). In you example 6 is still 6 in ALL of you cases, but the objects you tried to tie it to are VERY different and have nothing in common by themselves.

Exactly, 6 is not a solid concept, because it can be used for many (entirely unrelated) things.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
No, equation of wave does not. It (equation) is just a trigonometric identity.

Yes, that's all that it is. Nothing more. And of what use is it, if you can't use it to describe anything that really exists? LogicalAtheists brougth up the equation 100=99. This is an equation, and is thus mathematical. It is not logical, but it still exists within the realm of the language of mathematics. It has no use, because it cannot describe any real physical phenomena.

Yes. Objective reality is what math allows to do to mathematical objects (like a rainbow, a crystal, an atom, an eclipse, a star, a planet, a planet orbit, etc).

You're preaching again. You haven't substantiated anything you've said.

Your reasoning is exactly the same as those who, when asked what proof there is of a Creator, say "just look at all of the creation".

All civilisations on Earth have the SAME math regardless notations they use (and notations are constantly changing).

So what?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
I don't believe anything (accept on faith).This simply follows from logic.

You've just contradicted yourself. You said you didn't believe in anything, and then you used logic as a final source, taking for granted that it must be right, because it's logical.

This is dumb, because your sphere does not make photons yet. How can you "see" without any light?

Yes, even if the equations for seeing with light existed - if there is no (physical) light, there is no vision.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Actually you don't (have all equations). If you were, there obviousely was a house.

Why's that? If I have all of the equations that govern the construction of a house, that doesn't mean that there was a house. It means that I have all of the equations that govern the construction of a house. You make it appear as though one could pull money out of thin air, merely by "telling" the atoms what they are mathematically "supposed" to do.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Stop right here! Description can not "formulate a theory" not to say of one "capable of making prediction". It takes at least logic (and usually in advanced form we call math) to formulate a theory.

Yes, it takes logic to formulate a theory, but a theory is a description of some phenomenon.

So, you can not DESCRIBE what WILL happen. By definition of description. There is NOTHING to DESCRIBE yet.

Yes, and there is nothing to predict yet, but there will be. A prediction doesn't describe what exists now, does it?

(Imagine a policeman taking witness testimony: "Describe what WILL happen").

That policeman would be asking the witness to make an accurate prediction.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why's that? If I have all of the equations that govern the construction of a house, that doesn't mean that there was a house.

It does. If you have them.

If you don't have a house yet, then obviousely you don't have all equations yet.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat

Yes, and there is nothing to predict yet, but there will be. A prediction doesn't describe what exists now, does it?

Beg you to differ a description from a prediction. Different animals.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
It does. If you have them.

If you don't have a house yet, then obviousely you don't have all equations yet.

Originally posted by Me
You make it appear as though one could pull money out of thin air, merely by "telling" the atoms what they are mathematically "supposed" to do.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat

LogicalAtheists brougth up the equation 100=99. This is an equation, and is thus mathematical.

Incorrect. This is NOT an equation. To qualify for an equation it shall have EQUAL sides - which it does not have. So, this is not an equation. Sorry for correction.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Beg you to differ a description from a prediction. Different animals.

Yes they are different. A description can be about the past (=History), the present, or the future. Only when it is about the future is it a prediction.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat


You're preaching again. You haven't substantiated anything you've said.

I can. But it also takes understanding of the subject of discussion on your side.

Do you understand optics, for instance? Then I can explain you creation of such simple object as a rainbow, for example.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
I can. But it also takes understanding of the subject of discussion on your side.

Do you understand optics, for instance? Then I can explain you creation of such simple object as a rainbow, for example.

You must be really used to saying the same thing many times over, and it's blinding you from what I'm saying: You...Are...Preaching...Your...Own...Belief...But...It's...Not...Necessarily...True. In...fact...the...Hurdles...to...your...belief...make...it...very...unlikely.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
You must be really used to saying the same thing many times over, and it's blinding you from what I'm saying: You...Are...Preaching...Your...Own...Belief...But...It's...Not...Necessarily...True. In...fact...the...Hurdles...to...your...belief...make...it...very...unlikely.

Anything to say about the subject (origin of rainbow)? If not, I can safely assume that you don't know it (or don't understand it).

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes they are different. A description can be about the past (=History), the present, or the future. Only when it is about the future is it a prediction.

Good, we making progress (although slow, but it is ok, I am quite patient).

So, past and present can be described, but future can not. Simply because there is nothing to describe yet.

That is why math is NOT a mere description. It goes one step beyond - it predicts.

That is why engineers use math instead of just plain english to predict how much load can a bridge stand.

That is why math is so successful - without having the actual bridge it can accurately predict if the FUTURE bridge will hold certain load, or it needs to be reidesigned or reinforced.

No language can do that (predict capacity).

See the predictive power of math?

That is why math is DIFFERENT (that a language). Don't mix them anymore, ok?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Anything to say about the subject (origin of rainbow)? If not, I can safely assume that you don't know it (or don't understand it).

I didn't respond about the rainbow, because you have already "explained" it's origin (as it is held in your religion) and I don't think I'll get anywhere by telling you that you are using mathematics to desribe a physical phenomenon (as I've already told you this, but you ignored me).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Good, we making progress (although slow, but it is ok, I am quite patient).

That's commendable.

So, past and present can be described, but future can not. Simply because there is nothing to describe yet.

Not exactly. The future can be described, it's called a prediction. But, if science is wrong (and I'm not saying it is), then the Universe may be perfectly random, and thus unpredictable.

That is why math is NOT a mere description. It goes one step beyond - it predicts.

It describes the future.

That is why engineers use math instead of just plain english to predict how much load can a bridge stand.

That is why math is so successful - without having the actual bridge it can accurately predict if the FUTURE bridge will hold certain load, or it needs to be reidesigned or reinforced.

No language can do that (predict capacity).

See the predictive power of math?

Yes, I see the predictive power of math. I've always known it. However, if science is wrong (and I'm not saying it is, I'm just being open-minded), then mathematics doesn't actually have any "predictive power", and it is only chance that has allowed it to be "right" so many times.

Also (and this is important), if something is a tool of description (whether it be description of the present, past, or the future (prediction)), it is not causing anything, but merely describing it.[/color]

That is why math is DIFFERENT (that a language). Don't mix them anymore, ok?

No, not ok. We have your opinion, and that's all it is. Remember, typical language, logical (deductive) reasoning, can predict things also, without the use of mathematics[/color]. They are not, necessarily, as different as you think.

 

[drag]

Langauge can predict, sure it can.
I mean if there's a large fresh hot pizza in front
of me and I'm hungry, well, it's not that difficult
to predict what will happen...
Of course, I can't quantify the chances of this
most likely outcome - whatever it may be, but you can
bet they're pretty high...

 

[Mentat]

Waiting for Alexander's response (and trying to keep this thread on the first page )...

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Blah blah blah...
Remember, typical language, logical (deductive) reasoning, can predict things also, without the use of mathematics. They are not, necessarily, as different as you think. [/B]

To show you on a simple undertandable to you example how wrong are your long posts just try to predict what might be the result of tripling of a few coins you have in your pocket. Plain english is fine to make a valuable prediction. Feel free NOT to use any math (say, numbers).

 

[FZ+]

Prediction: If I punch myself, it would hurt.

No maths involved.

 

[Hurkyl]

That is why math is DIFFERENT (that a language).

You do realize that the very first thing in the formal presentation of mathematics is a specification of the grammar for the language of propositional logic, right?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't respond about the rainbow, because you have already "explained" it's origin (as it is held in your religion) and I don't think I'll get anywhere by telling you that you are using mathematics to desribe a physical phenomenon (as I've already told you this, but you ignored me).

Which physical phenomenon? There is nothing physical in rainbow (contrary to your faith). I believe that you lack of understanding of physical phenomenon comes simply from you ignorance (=lack of knowledga about origin of "physical" objects and phenomena).

When you ACTUALLY start studying physics, you will be surprised little of "physical" is there in physics. Moreover, the more you study it, the LESS "physical objects" and "physical phenomena" remains. The rest will be math, math and only math.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Alexander
Which physical phenomenon? There is nothing physical in rainbow (contrary to your faith).

Which mathematical phenomenon? There is nothing mathematical in rainbow (contrary to your faith).

See how easily that is turned around? Also, the reverse case I presented has more merit, because you can actually see the rainbow (which, in my book, makes it physical).

I believe that you lack of understanding of physical phenomenon comes simply from you ignorance (=lack of knowledga about origin of "physical" objects and phenomena).

This is just plain dumb. Most people who know physics agree with Mentat's reasoning, and he will probably still hold to it after he starts studying physics.

When you ACTUALLY start studying physics, you will be surprised little of "physical" is there in physics. Moreover, the more you study it, the LESS "physical objects" and "physical phenomena" remains. The rest will be math, math and only math.

Why, oh why, don't you start addressing Mentat's logic? You keep parroting this mantra over and over again, and you consistently avoid addressing the hurdles that Mentat and I have presented.

Why do you refuse to see how weak your argument is? It really is totally devoid of any kind of logic. In fact, what you are preaching here is none other than idealism. You are confusing ideal Platonic forms with real, material objects.

I am surprised that someone who was educated in the USSR, with its strong emphasis on dialectical materialism, would cling to such nonsense.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Tom
Which mathematical phenomenon? There is nothing mathematical in rainbow (contrary to your faith).

Oh, my god. Nothing mathematical, huh?

Tom, did you study optics? Dispersion of light? Atomic physics? There is PLENTY of mathematics in explaining why the electrons in glass respond to e/m field of different frequency differently.

Rainbow, contrary to your claim, is not a physical phenomenon. There is no rainbow per se (=by itself). It is the mathematical result of interaction of several more basic objects/phenomena.

Now, let's honestly ask ourselves: does rainbow bow originate from light itself? Nope. There is no rainbow in sunlight. Indeed, look at the Sun - do you see the rainbow? Nor there is a rainbow in a droplet of H₂0. Again one can take a droplet and attempt to get rainbow out of it (without adding sunlight or other light). But adding them together (droplet AND sunlight) and looking at their interaction at certain angle - voila - we observe a rainbow circle. And the dispersion of electron's respond to e/m wave is key factor in creating rainbow out of light and water. The shape of rainbow, the location and the order of colors are dictated by dispersion function of respond of outer electron in O atom in a water molecule to passing e/m wave.

So, we need several ingridients to cook a rainbow: mix of photons (sunlight), spherical droplets, and dispersion of electron interaction. Then a rainbow with all its "physical" properties follows as a mathematical consequence.

Each of "appear to be physical" ingridients (say, sunlight, or electron) can be analysed futher (as another object) and similarly found to be a mathematical consequence of more fundamental "parts". And so on.

So, there is not as much "physics" in a rainbow as you think. But much more math resulting in all its observable properies: angular radius of rainbow, location, colors order, colors angular separation, overlapping of wavelengths (due to angular size of Sun), spread of individual colors (due to diffraction on droplet), angular size of second reflection created rainbow, inverse order of colors in that rainbow, etc etc - all these properties are mathematical consequence of interaction of light with distribution of droplets PLUS the location of observer (system of reference). What can be seen by one observer (in one system of reference) can not be seen by another one (say, in shifted reference system) despite that both observer look at the SAME water droplets illuminated by SAME light.

It is plenty of math, dude.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Tom


Also, the reverse case I presented has more merit, because you can actually see the rainbow (which, in my book, makes it physical).

Seeing something and understanding its origin are two different things.

See how easily that is turned around?

What turned around? Facts don't depend on your opinion.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Tom
Why, oh why, don't you start addressing Mentat's logic? You keep parroting this mantra over and over again, and you consistently avoid addressing the hurdles that Mentat and I have presented.

There is no logic in his statements (your statements lose logic too when you parrot his statements, by the way. You were more argumentative at times). There is simply layman view (shall I rather say, misunderstanding?) of math (as being just an artificial human construct similar to languages, which math is different from).

Logic is NOT just a human language. Logic is inherent property of existence. That is why logic (and thus math), unlike a language is much more useful in making PREDICTIONS of how existing objects can and how they can not behave. Is this hard to grasp - the origin of logic?

That is why math is used to indeed make correct predictions, and a language is not.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
To show you on a simple undertandable to you example how wrong are your long posts just try to predict what might be the result of tripling of a few coins you have in your pocket. Plain english is fine to make a valuable prediction. Feel free NOT to use any math (say, numbers).

First off, your question involves numbers, and so cannot be answered without them. Duh!

Anyway, if you actually took the time to read my posts, you might see why I make the conclusions I do. But why would you do that? It's not like YOU could actually learn something from me.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
There is no logic in his statements

If I approached your posts with this attitude, I would probably behave just as you do (and continue to PREACH my opinion at you). The difference is, I actually read your entire post, think about what you posted, and then supply a response. This is the logical course of debate.

Logic is NOT just a human language. Logic is inherent property of existence.

Why do you keep changing your sermon? Sometimes you say "logic is a property of existence", sometimes you say "logic is the origin of existence", sometimes you say "there is no 'physical' existence, just maths". When are you going to decide what to believe?

That is why logic (and thus math), unlike a language is much more useful in making PREDICTIONS of how existing objects can and how they can not behave.

In your opinion.

Is this hard to grasp - the origin of logic?

Wait a minute...there's an "origin of logic"? Isn't this contradictory to your previous proposition: that logic is the origin of all existence?