Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
this is not true - there are many logic systems with different axioms in each. And this doesn't address the question: why does logic an a prior object bear on the a postori the way it does?I may as well assume that the axioms of logic hold, because if they do not hold the universe is not rational and self-consistent and, not only would humans be impossible, no knowledge could be gained from observation (as there would be no rules followed by this unlogical universe)
this is not true - there are many logic systems with different axioms in each. And this doesn't address the question: why does logic an a prior bear on the a postori the way it does?
sure how about: Second Order, Fuzzy logic, DeonticCan you name some of the different logical systems? Or can you explain some of the differences in the axioms?
sure how about: Second Order, Fuzzy logic, Deontic
Logic as a system requires no faith other than the common faith that you are about to rationally think and deduce, and that you can determine tautology.Ok, I have no objection to your claims so far. What are your thoughts on the solution to the question posed? I have my own, but I'd rather hear yours first.
i want to comment more on this post: so it's true because you don't like the alternative? Isn’t this a justification you would criticize a Christian for if they used it to defend their beliefs?I may as well assume that the axioms of logic hold, because if they do not hold the universe is not rational and self-consistent and, not only would humans be impossible, no knowledge could be gained from observation (as there would be no rules followed by this unlogical universe)
Looks like you are doing your best to use logic to arrive at your conclusions. What do I make of that?i want to comment more on this post: so it's true because you don't like the alternative? Isnt this a justification you would criticize a Christian for if they used it to defend their beliefs?
Looks like you are doing your best to use logic to arrive at your conclusions. What do I make of that?
Axioms are not accurately described as "something we accept because we don´t like the alternative". It´s more like something we accept because there is no workable alternative.
That I hold logic as a first principle?Looks like you are doing your best to use logic to arrive at your conclusions. What do I make of that?
This is just not true. How much experience do you have working with axiomatic logic systems, calculuss, and set theory? Its highly arbitrary, some logics are more useful than others . Also you did post an alternative (an inconsistent universe), one you dont believe in, but also one which you cant offer evidence against or for. I dont believe in that universe because of my faith, you dont why?Axioms are not accurately described as "something we accept because we don´t like the alternative". It´s more like something we accept because there is no workable alternative.
Make a proposal how we can have a conversation without axiomatically accepting logic, and we will get talking.That I hold logic as a first principle?
This is just not true. How much experience do you have working with axiomatic logic systems, calculus’s, and set theory? It’s highly arbitrary, some logics are more useful than others . Also you did post an alternative (an inconsistent universe), one you don’t believe in, but also one which you can’t offer evidence against or for. I don’t believe in that universe because of my faith, you don’t why?
Sorry you quoted me talking to someone else, hence the problem.
But they can´t be assumed to have any meaning.I absolutely agree that logic needs to be axiomatically accepted. We can absolutely converse without logic, we can’t reason. I.e. the truth value of statements can’t be determined without some system of logic, but the statements can still be made.
I didn´t intend to explain it, in the first place, and I can´t explain it. That´s the particularity about an axiom like this - it defies rationalization and justification. It is simply the neccessary basis for any abstraction, explanation or statement. It´s not a good thing, it´s a necessary thing.The problem with your position is that it doesn’t explain why logic does what it does, or why we even have logic to begin with – it just gives reason why it’s a good thing.
Firstly, you didn´t ask me how logic works.If I were to ask you, “how does electronic communication work?” and your response was, “I’d like to see you ask me that without electronic communication because I’m in another country” That isn’t an answer.
Sorry you quoted me talking to someone else, hence the problem.
I absolutely agree that logic needs to be axiomatically accepted. We can absolutely converse without logic, we cant reason. I.e. the truth value of statements cant be determined without some system of logic, but the statements can still be made.
The problem with your position is that it doesnt explain why logic does what it does, or why we even have logic to begin with it just gives reason why its a good thing.
If I were to ask you, how does electronic communication work? and your response was, Id like to see you ask me that without electronic communication because Im in another country That isnt an answer.
You are wrong predicate calculus doesnt come from logic, logic is defined in predicate calculus. If what you are saying is true, how does one understand the axioms of logic in the first place?But they can´t be assumed to have any meaning.
I´m not talking about the truth value of statements, I am saying that without the axiomatic acceptance of logic statements aren´t even statements.
didn´t intend to explain it, in the first place, and I can´t explain it. That´s the particularity about an axiom like this - it defies rationalization and justification. It is simply the neccessary basis for any abstraction, explanation or statement. It´s not a good thing, it´s a necessary thing
You are misunderstanding my question, Im not asking you to explain why a particular logics axioms work but why logic is transcendental in nature.Firstly, you didn´t ask me how logic works.
Secondly, logic is not a device like electronic communication. It is thecognitive prerequisite for any attempt of an explanation. This self-reference exactly points to it being a necessary axiom.
If you ask me to explain logic you expect the explanation to be logical. And there you already have your answer.
However, if you are content with an explanation like "qweproitu viur390 vcljkr", I´ll concede you have a point and give you this answer.
No more absurd than saying you cant have communication without logic. The whole point of my comparison was to show how silly it is.Comparing logic to communication equipment is looking at it in entirely the wrong way.
First of all, logic isnt syntax, it isnt grammatical in origin.Logic is simply syntax (not semantics, that is no content whatsoever). It simply allows you take a set of propositions (no idea what they mean, and it doesn't matter) assign true and false values to the propositions (no idea where those came from), and then construct other propositions so that all the propositions form a consistent set of propositions (that is you can never find a proposition that is both true and false).
Asking why logic works is like asking why chess "works". Chess is just a set of rules and so is logic.
You are confusing my question, I have been stating this since the beginning, the question isnt why are we able to make constructions from a set of logic axioms the question is why is a set of logic axioms transcendental? Read your description of logic again (that isnt what logic is, its what logic does). Why does logic do this? Why if logic abstractly says something must be true, does it follow in the real world?
"Why does chess work?" Well chess consists of a set of rules that make for an enjoyable game, there are other sets of rules out there, but most of them make for dull games.
"Why does logic work?" Well we chose a set of rules that seem to be useful.
"How do we know they are useful?" Well that is an entirely different question, but has nothing at all to do with logic per se.
First of all, logic isnt syntax, it isnt grammatical in origin.
Secondly thats not what logic is. Thats what deductive boolean logics do. All you have done is give a description of what one type of logic does.
You are confusing my question, I have been stating this since the beginning, the question isnt why are we able to make constructions from a set of logic axioms the question is why is a set of logic axioms transcendental?
Read your description of logic again (that isnt what logic is, its what logic does). Why does logic do this? Why if logic abstractly says something must be true, does it follow in the real world?
You are wrong predicate calculus doesnt come from logic, logic is defined in predicate calculus.
We don´t "understand the axioms of logic". We are trying to put into words that which determines our thinking. An absurd process, actually.If what you are saying is true, how does one understand the axioms of logic in the first place?
Well, I haven´t said anything about logic being "transcendental in nature".You are misunderstanding my question, Im not asking you to explain why a particular logics axioms work but why logic is transcendental in nature.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?