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.
The "laws of logic" are descriptive, and are "transcendent" to the extent that any description would be. Descriptions are useless without an observer.Again, the truths that are the Laws of Logic transcend the mind of mankind. A rock would still be a rock and not a tree whether we are here to observe it or not.
How do you know this?
Are you suggesting that rocks turn into trees when nobody is there to watch them?
Because if so, we've really hit hard irrationalism here.
Yeah I think there is a good distinction there. The logical process can tell us things about worlds that don't exist, and predict things in the world that does exist - it can give us remote, a priori descriptions. But that doesn't speak of the process itself, where are we getting this process from? - the process and format in which a proposition is completed. Why do we happen to have a scope of reasoning that can fathom even non existent things? Why do we even have reason when behavior is all that is required for survival. That process itself must have an explanation because it works unfailingly for all things when applied correctly and adequately informed. As Nagel would say, 'we can explain the interworkings of a calculator but not why it's correct.' It's correct because we gave it this process, but where did we acquire that process?Do you agree that logic not only tells us what is but what we "should" think about something. Nature can only provide a description of what is but cannot provide a prescription of what ought to be so it cannot tell us how we ought to think. Logic is also immaterial and conceptual while nature is just the opposite.
That claim , 'that there is no way to know that they don't', is self defeating too. It is a knowledge claim that requires non observational consistency, it's an a priori statement, so there must be some epistemic bedrock that goes beyond mere observation.I think he’s saying there’s no way to know that they don’t. We can only assume based on observation that rocks don’t turn into trees when no ones looking.
You’re right though, it is irrational to assume they do.
That claim , 'that there is no way to know that they don't', is self defeating too. It is a knowledge claim that requires non observational consistency, it's an a priori statement, so there must be some epistemic bedrock that goes beyond mere observation.
In simpiler terms it can't be observed that there is no way to know that rocks don't turn into trees. In any case there would have to be some epistemic bedrock before observation to turn observation into information.
That was'nt a hypothetical, just a rejection of that premise claim. I can confirm that If A doesn't exist it doesn't have any properties, which includes knowledge. That conclusion is derived a priori, as I can't observe something that does not exist. It must actually exist first, for me to observe it.Are you suggesting that non-existent things, us in this hypothetical, could know things? How could we know if we didn't exist anything about the rules of the universe? That rocks don't turn into trees is an observation about this universe--where we exist.
I think he’s saying there’s no way to know that they don’t. We can only assume based on observation that rocks don’t turn into trees when no ones looking.
You’re right though, it is irrational to assume they do.
That claim , 'that there is no way to know that they don't', is self defeating too. It is a knowledge claim that requires non observational consistency, it's an a priori statement, so there must be some epistemic bedrock that goes beyond mere observation.
In simpiler terms it can't be observed that there is no way to know that rocks don't turn into trees. In any case there would have to be some epistemic bedrock before observation to turn observation into information.
We can have intentional ''inexistence', that is, more or less, that we can think about things that exist and things that do not exist but could have existed. So we can know things about Pegasus even though we will never observe Pegasus ( unless the laws change ). And if they do change we can make predictions about Pegasus, like needing a better lasso and saddle. The logical process guides our thoughts in thinking correctly about things that could exist, propositions about what could exist, and also guides observation into information.So we can at least assume that if there's no observation of a thing then knowledge of that thing can't be obtained?
Yeah I think there is a good distinction there. The logical process can tell us things about worlds that don't exist, and predict things in the world that does exist - it can give us remote, a priori descriptions. But that doesn't speak of the process itself, where are we getting this process from? - the process and format in which a proposition is completed. Why do we happen to have a scope of reasoning that can fathom even non existent things? Why do we even have reason when behavior is all that is required for survival. That process itself must have an explanation because it works unfailingly for all things when applied correctly and adequately informed. As Nagel would say, 'we can explain the interworkings of a calculator but not why it's correct.' It's correct because we gave it this process, but where did we acquire that process?
Logic seems to be a plan for thinking correctly. There needs to be a reason why the logic we have access to is 100% accurate for all possibilities in its scope, and the only place that I know that has formal causes is an intelligent agent. If we designed an AI we would pass on our logic to guide it's behavior through intuitions. Shurely that AI would then wonder about the scope of it's thinking and come to the same question. Through introspection, it would see that it's behavior is being guided and coerced along a particular scope of fantastic success and fulfilment, and ponder the mind of its creators based on the programming they left behind.
We can have intentional ''inexistence', that is, more or less, that we can think about things that exist and things that do not exist but could have existed. So we can know things about Pegasus even though we will never observe Pegasus ( unless the laws change ). And if they do change we can make predictions about Pegasus, like needing a better lasso and saddle. The logical process guides our thoughts in thinking correctly about things that could exist, propositions about what could exist, and also guides observation into information.
Yeah, I think we are thinking about logic differently. I'm seeing it as a process or a plan, where logic refers to a process of thinking, like a formal cause that results in knowledge. In this, a proposition like 'A cannot also be not A' is a semantic description of the possible states of affairs. It's not logic itself, but the conclusion, in descriptive form, of the process of logic. The process, in us at least, is not necessary so should have an explanation.A really interesting post. It seems like you are getting at the account for logic which is interesting. It seems to me that the laws of logic are necessary. Certainly they obtain when there is matter in a given possible world, but if you read my hypothetical about the Nothing reality, I think it strongly motivates the intuition that logic applies in all logically possible worlds. If this is so then we don't a God to act as the grounding for the existence of logic. However, you also asked a question about how we can use logic which is a different thing. That is essentially what is meant by reasoning. You can account for why we reason and why it is mostly effective by positing a God. Another account is that evolutionary reliabalism is the case. In either story we have an account of reason (but not a justification because it would be circular), the question then becomes which story is true and we can then look at the evidences.
The "Laws of Logic" are a product of a mind, it's a descriptive tool we use to define what we observe. If there were were no minds, then there is no 'description,' ergo, rendering any notions of "transcendence" as meaningless.Are you suggesting that rocks turn into trees when nobody is there to watch them?
Because if so, we've really hit hard irrationalism here.
Unless you misunderstand the point I was making @Oncedeceived, then you're intentionally framing a straw man fallacy.Yes, I find it highly entertaining when someone's response to the presuppositionalist insistence that all other worldviews are irrational is to immediately embrace irrationality.
It's a legitimate move, I think, but as soon as you make it, you need to embrace irrationality whole-sale. No falling back on science as a method of obtaining knowledge once you've suggested that nothing that we observe might exist independently of our observations.
The "Laws of Logic" are a product of a mind, it's a descriptive tool we use to define what we observe. If there were were no minds, then there is no 'description,' ergo, rendering any notions of "transcendence" as meaningless.
Unless you misunderstand the point I was making @Oncedeceived, then you're intentionally framing a straw man fallacy.
Oh man is there ever a whole branch of philosophy on this. It's a very hot topic, with so many questions left unanswered about how we think about things.Sure, we can think about things that don't exist out there, in objective reality, but as soon as we think of them, they do exist in our thoughts. So is it really possible to think about something that doesn't exist anywhere, not even in your thoughts? I'm sure there's whole branch of philosophy on that subject.
I'll help you identify your straw man.suggesting that a rock and a tree might be the same thing in the absence of mind.
I'll help you identify your straw man.
Asking how someone may "know" a rock doesn't change to a tree, is not the same as suggesting it does. You're picking a fight where there is none.
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?