Question for presups...

[devolved]

The laws of Logic are the fundamental laws of reality and truth, the principles that make rational thought possible.

Our rational thought is grounded in them. I don't think that logic "hides inside" of things...unless of course you feel our thoughts "hide inside" our minds?

A law is a description of consistent reality as our minds correlate that consistency and distill predictive mechanisms we can use. That's what a law is. It's a predictive approach to reality, because some processes of reality are contextually consistent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A law is a description of consistent reality as our minds corellate that consistency and distill predictive mechanisms we can use. That's what a law is. It's a predictive approach to reality, because some processes of reality are cintextually consistent.

This law is necessary to describe anything of reality. The Laws of Logic are a universal principle that define the fundamental nature of rational thought.

 

[devolved]

This law is necessary to describe anything of reality.

I'm not sure what that means to you? Are you saying that there's codex of laws that our brains and reality uses to make sure they "know what to do"?

Or, perhaps, it's something that you a perceptive as a self-aware mechanism that labels an internal process that recognizes and distinguishes identity of different patterns that you see... and necessity for such identity to be consistent.

To me it seems the latter and not former.

The Laws of Logic are a universal principle that define the fundamental nature of rational thought.

Again, you seem to reify these concepts as "standalone" rules that govern reality, as though there is some "central hub" mechanism that manages reality via these rules.

Do all observable entities refer to some collections of "laws" they follow? I don't think so. These behave and do something, and we codify that behavior as some consistently-observable conceptual relationships. The term "law" simply means "conceptual boundary of consistent behavior and properties".

So... it's a concept... not reality. Reality doesn't need your description of it to function.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not sure what that means to you? Are you saying that there's codex of laws that our brains and reality uses to make sure they "know what to do"?

Reality uses nothing, our minds however, to make rational thought rational are grounded in laws that 'make sense' of reality.

Or, perhaps, it's something that you a perceptive as a self-aware mechanism that labels an internal process that recognizes and distinguishes identity of different patterns that you see... and necessity for such identity to be consistent.

To me it seems the latter and not former.

It seems that you are claiming that you have no such laws that you use to have rational thought? You and I are both under the same requirement to form rational thought, to abide by the Laws of Logic.

Again, you seem to reify these concepts as "standalone" rules that govern reality, as though there is some "central hub" mechanism that manages reality via these rules.

Do I take this to mean that you don't agree that there are 'rules' by name the Laws of Logic that govern our ability to make sense of reality? If the Laws of Logic are not "standalone" how do they stand in your estimation?

Do all observable entities refer to some collections of "laws" they follow? I don't think so.

I'm not sure what you mean by observable entities?

These behave and do something, and we codify that behavior as some consistently-observable conceptual relationships. The terms law simply means "conceptual boundary of consistent behavior and properties".

Is it? What makes behavior and properties consistent and how is it a conceptual boundary? How does a concept of behavior and properties have such a boundary at all? What you are doing here is using the Laws of Logic but rejecting them at the same time. You argue for laws being conceptual but if they are conceptual they are not absolute and without being absolute, they could change at any time. We know they don't change at any time.

So... it's a concept... not reality. Reality doesn't need your description of it to function.

Reality doesn't need anyone's description of it to function, and the Laws of Logic don't need anyone's description of them to function. Reality is not man conceived nor are the Laws of Logic. What we are discussing is whether the atheistic worldview or theistic worldview can explain the existence of the Laws of nature, the Laws of Logic or the Laws of morality best and most consistently. What worldview has the best reason for these to exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not sure what that means to you? Are you saying that there's codex of laws that our brains and reality uses to make sure they "know what to do"?

Or, perhaps, it's something that you a perceptive as a self-aware mechanism that labels an internal process that recognizes and distinguishes identity of different patterns that you see... and necessity for such identity to be consistent.

To me it seems the latter and not former.



Again, you seem to reify these concepts as "standalone" rules that govern reality, as though there is some "central hub" mechanism that manages reality via these rules.

Do all observable entities refer to some collections of "laws" they follow? I don't think so. These behave and do something, and we codify that behavior as some consistently-observable conceptual relationships. The term "law" simply means "conceptual boundary of consistent behavior and properties".

So... it's a concept... not reality. Reality doesn't need your description of it to function.

By the way, you may not have seen post #127 in which I responded to your post #120. Thanks.

 

[devolved]

By the way, you may not have seen post #127 in which I responded to your post #120. Thanks.

Yes, I'm just seeing this now. I'll respond.

 

[devolved]

It seems that now you are backing off your first claim that knowledge is true belief. If there is any uncertainty, it would logically be lacking the ability to know for certain it was true. Science itself began with the presuppositions that objective truth was attainable, that there was an order to the universe and the ability of mankind to comprehend that order. In fact, it still does. Without any of those presuppositions Science could never have developed. Modern Science was founded on this bedrock of Christian thought. Man created in the image of God had the intelligence and logic to comprehend the universe which was designed with an order and regularity of reality, with unity and uniformity of the physical universe by an Intelligent Mind.

Uncertainty exists in context of certain information lacking where we have to approximate the meaning. Since science is an exploration of unknown by means of leveraging known postulates, scientific knowledge is provisional in nature.

So, in science the data we get from certain experiments is known. The setting of these experiments is known. The model constructed using that data is known. That model is generally good enough to predict ratios or sequence of similar context.

The "ontology" behind what may really drive these beyond the model is unknown. Thus, the knowledge of scientific kind is a knowledge about the model and not necessarily about how well that model can describe "actual reality". Science only cares about what we can know from actual reality enough to formalize into some framework we can predict reality with some degree of precision.

You can read an essay about this issue by Asimov:

http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

It is this self-evident nature which we are considering here. Without the laws of logic we could not being to 'know' what an apple is let alone that it is fruit. We could not be having this conversation.

Again, I'm not really sure what you are talking about here when you say "without the laws of logic"? Do you think there are some "legal codex of reality" that all entities of reality reference and abide by?

If not... what do you mean by "laws of logic"? Where do these reside, and how do these interact and drive reality?

Laws of Logic transcend our brains, although our brains are necessary to process thought.

Again, I'm not sure what you are referring to here. How do these laws of logic work in relation to how these "manage reality". In your view, is reality a computer simulation of some sorts, and these laws of logic then "calculate" the behavior of every entity we observe?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Uncertainty exists in context of certain information lacking where we have to approximate the meaning. Since science is an exploration of unknown by means of leveraging known postulates, scientific knowledge is provisional in nature.

So, in science the data we get from certain experiments is known. The setting of these experiments is known. The model constructed using that data is known. That model is generally good enough to predict ratios or sequence of similar context.

The "ontology" behind what may really drive these beyond the model is unknown. Thus, the knowledge of scientific kind is a knowledge about the model and not necessarily about how well that model can describe "actual reality". Science only cares about what we can know from actual reality enough to formalize into some framework we can predict reality with some degree of precision.

You can read an essay about this issue by Asimov:

http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

First of all, I enjoyed the link. I think he did a great job in showing examples of his point, which is rather what I was getting at, uncertainty makes absolute truth by way of science well uncertain. We may know many things about something but there might still be something unknown that makes what we know different or changes that knowledge. While it might be an advancement towards that truth as in the link, it still is uncertain as to justified truth. Which brings us back to what you said: Knowledge is a demonstrably (justified) true belief. Such demonstration can be factual, or in a scope of certain nominal declarations that assign known labels to consistent events and processes.

A belief is a conjecture that may or may not be true. If a belief is demonstrated to be true, it becomes (shifts into the category of) knowledge. If knowledge is shown to be untrue, it becomes a false belief.

Beliefs are of lesser certainty than knowledge. Knowledge by definition can't be false. Beliefs can be false.
If knowledge is a demonstrably true belief, if such knowledge is changed by advanced knowledge or there is still unknowns about said knowledge is it demonstrable justified knowledge thus true belief?

I ask then, how does this help us in our discussion?

Again, I'm not really sure what you are talking about here when you say "without the laws of logic"? Do you think there are some "legal codex of reality" that all entities of reality reference and abide by?

If not... what do you mean by "laws of logic"? Where do these reside, and how do these interact and drive reality?

Perhaps I've taken for granted that you know what the Laws of Logic are?


Logic is the backbone of critical thinking. Logic is extremely useful for uncovering error and establishing truth. There are principles of logic and I would like to introduce you to the first three laws of logic. These are very important.

1. The Law of Identity
2. The Law of Non-Contradiction
3. The Law of Excluded Middle

The law of identity states that A is A. An Apple is an Apple. In other words, something is what it is. If something exists, it has a nature, an essence. For example, a book has a front and back cover with pages. A car has four wheels, seats, doors, windows, etc. A tree has branches, leaves, a trunk, and roots. This also means that anything that exists has characteristics. We recognize what something is by observing its characteristic. You know that a tree is a tree because you see its branches, it's leads, its trunk, etc.
Furthermore, if something has an identity, it has a single identity. It does not have more than one identity. In other words, if something exists it has a set of attributes that are consistent with its own existence. It does not have a set of attributes that are inconsistent with itself. Therefore we can easily conclude that a cat is not a parachute. An Apple is not a race car. A tree is not a movie.
The law of non-contradiction tells us that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense. In other words, something (a statement) cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. We use the law of non-contradiction constantly in discussions and debates because we are naturally able to recognize when someone is contradicting himself. If I were to tell you that yesterday I went shopping and then later I told you that yesterday I did not go shopping, you would be correct in saying there was a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another and yet both are claimed to be true. Since we know that both cannot be true, we see a contradiction. From this principle, we can conclude that truth is not self-contradictory. This is a very important concept. Let me repeat it. Truth is not self-contradictory.
The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false. For example, my hair is brown. It is either true or false that my hair is brown. Another example: I am pregnant. The statement is either true or false. Since I am a male, it is not possible for me to be pregnant. Therefore, the statement is false. If I were a female, it would be possible for me to be pregnant (given normal bodily conditions). A woman is not "kind-of" pregnant. She either is or is not pregnant - there is no middle position. The law of excluded middle is important because it helps us deal in absolutes. This is particularly important in a society where relativism is promoted and truth statements are denied.
Please review these three laws and become familiar with them. They are extremely important when developing critical thinking skills. You will see them used throughout these upcoming lessons.

------------------------ Focus Points ------------------------

1. • The law of identity says that A is A, that if something exist it has a nature, a single nature. It is what it is.
   • The law of non-contradiction says that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense. Truth is not self-contradictory.
2. The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false.

http://storage.carm.org/school-demos/demo3/2_logic/3logic.htm

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Laws of Logic transcend our brains, although our brains are necessary to process thought.

Laws of logic are assumptions encoded into symbols which have no intrinsic meaning.

Logic and mathematics is nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow. Can you show that there is something else involved in the process? Can you show that facts can be derived from assumptions and definitions?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Laws of logic are assumptions encoded into symbols which have no intrinsic meaning.

Logic and mathematics is nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow. Can you show that there is something else involved in the process? Can you show that facts can be derived from assumptions and definitions?

So in other words, you have no argumentation to show that LOL are assumptions encoded into symbols which have no intrinsic meaning, at least nothing meaningful. Ok. Makes discussion rather a moot point.