Logic is perfect

[Sappho de Miranda]

I think its the same as math;
Math is always right, else it isn't math.
Logic is always perfect, else it isn't logic.

Really...

Really?

Really!

An argument is logical if it meets the standards of validity.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Logic, rationality, reason, and intelligence are all synonyms.

And of course since they are of humans they cannot be perfect! The fact that we try and split hairs that thin, speaks of human flaws, that we create a web of BS so as to try and appear perfect, it's actually quite laughable, the naked ape attempting to put his best foot forward, yet just a foot.

Propositional Logic is perfect, even 'God's' have to obey it if they wish to make propositions and objects, its just not that useful apart from pointing out errors in an argument that is.

I disagree, as it all depends on the propositions. The implications, ramifications and interconnectedness of propositions are often assumed to be complementary, from mans perspective, as if universal, of which there is no necessary accounting.
Who spins the propositions? What's their agenda? What preconceived notions forms the basis of any particular proposition?

Do you have any particular examples of propositional logic that has the gods bowing in subserviency?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Here is a thought experiment. Imagine prehistoric men who had no language. They hunted game together and lived together, using perhaps hand gestures, grunts and glances (facial expressions). Much like chimps and lions.

Okay.

One such man is spear hunting and sees a boar running by. He knows that he must lead the boar - if he throws the spear towards where the boar is now, it will fall behind. But, 'If I throw it ahead of the boar, the spear will hit the boar.'

Certainly, 'leading' a target in this way is within the capability of such an ancient human (or even Neanderthal). But he cannot say, 'If p (I throw it there), then q (I can hit it).'

I presume this was learnt empirically rather than logically.

Similarly, he can see dark clouds approaching and expect rain (If dark clouds approach, it will rain). Do these correlations upon which he bases his behavior mean that he has derived logic from his experience? Is logic based on experiences of causation (or correlation) and appropriate reactions to them?

Sure but without such events there'd be no logic to experience.

I can see where we may say that such a human is 'acting logically.' But that is only our description of a learned activity, not a necessary result derived from the world. We could easily imagine a 'dumb' human who kept throwing at the wrong spot continuously. We would describe him as illogical or dense, but we wouldn't therefore maintain that the 'world' is illogical.

I'm not saying that the world is logical, although I think it is as if not then the world can exist and not exist at the same time(?), I'm saying that logic arises exactly because there is a world of things and states of affairs.

As for concepts such as the law of non-contradiction, I don't see any way in which the pre-linguistic human could be said to exhibit it. It is purely based on linguistic concepts - 'x cannot be both big and small.' This depends entirely on linguistics.

So you think a pre-linguistic human would pick up a small object to complete a task where a large one is needed? But I accept this is probably ignoring your point. So yes, I agree that Logic is concerned with propositions but think that the fact that we can have propositions depends upon there being things and states of affairs and as such those things exhibit the laws of Logic, i.e. a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Your example is about relations and as such a thing can be both big and small at the same time as it depends upon the relative context.

So, if a human, in every way like you and me physiologically, but without language, cannot be said to derive logic from the world, then wouldn't it seem that logic somehow derives from language itself?

To be honest I don't think we can say we are alike if language is the absent thing and I accept that this may undercut my point But then I don't think we could derive language without there being a world and I think a world cannot exist if it did not demonstrate its Logic by its actual existence. Or some such.

I can dig it, but didn't you say something about it being perfect?, If it can be perfect only from mans perspective, states of affairs and such, then it can be perfect only from any particular mans perspective, which is where the rub is. Something conditional depends upon who sets the conditions, no?

[SpheresOfBalance]

know what your saying blags but .consciousness =relativity=nonlocality.but no one seems to see my point.may be as you say i should stop harping on about it.but other topics seem relativly dull and local.ha

Could you point me to, or reiterate your concept of "consciousness =relativity=nonlocality", the expounded version, please.

Thank You!

[Arising_uk]

... Arising is a logical positivist ( ) ...

Hmm! This made me think, so I think more a logical phenomenologist.

and thinks that everything in consciousness emanates from 'the world'.

So not quite, consciousness 'emanates' from being a Body with senses in an external world. Self-consciousness like ours 'emanates' from there being two of these with a language that recognise each other, but I'll not commit to this, its just a think.

[Arising_uk]

...

Do you have any particular examples of propositional logic that has the gods bowing in subserviency?

P v ~P
~(P ^ ~P)
P -> Q, P, Q

[Arising_uk]

I can dig it, but didn't you say something about it being perfect?, If it can be perfect only from mans perspective, states of affairs and such, then it can be perfect only from any particular mans perspective, which is where the rub is. Something conditional depends upon who sets the conditions, no?

No, as the only condition setting for Logic to exist is for there to be things or states of affairs, as if there are things or states of affairs then they express the laws of Propositional Logic by their very existence.

[NielsBohr]

So if logic is perfectly true, where does that leave rationality? Is logic a part of intelligence or is it a part of rationality, in having both terms and holding them as pragmatic do we deny logic? And hence is truth just an incorrigible illusion amongst irrational people to hold everyone back?

-Fine topic.

As you, but differently, I asked once upon a time What does really mean "logic" ?

-Let me understand, you come on a possible deny of logic because of the term pragmatic... Maybe as you, I approached pragmatic to practical, and I believe it is really near...

-When I asked the question, a well instructed person, but taking not himself seriously, told me an excellent thing, which made my feets on the earth; he answered:

Logic talks only about herself.

I think he had all understand about the theme, and to answer to your question, that it was rather intelligence, than rationalism - moreover for the reason that the person answering me despited rationalism.

But in your question...
What kind of rationalism (to know what it is for you could help in answering) ?

[A_Seagull]

I can dig it, but didn't you say something about it being perfect?, If it can be perfect only from mans perspective, states of affairs and such, then it can be perfect only from any particular mans perspective, which is where the rub is. Something conditional depends upon who sets the conditions, no?

No, as the only condition setting for Logic to exist is for there to be things or states of affairs, as if there are things or states of affairs then they express the laws of Propositional Logic by their very existence.

Are you sure?? How can this possibly be? Can you prove it? And if you can only prove it by using logic aren't you assuming the conclusion?

[Arising_uk]

Are you sure??

Yes, unless what you are questioning is a different understanding of what I said?

How can this possibly be?

How can it not? Unless you are saying that existence can be without being a thing or state of affair?

Can you prove it?

Only by pointing out the contradiction in saying that we can have Logic if there are no things nor state of affairs.

And if you can only prove it by using logic aren't you assuming the conclusion?

Maybe but you'll have to explain more.

[SpheresOfBalance]

P v ~P
~(P ^ ~P)
P -> Q, P, Q

And to this:

I can dig it, but didn't you say something about it being perfect?, If it can be perfect only from mans perspective, states of affairs and such, then it can be perfect only from any particular mans perspective, which is where the rub is. Something conditional depends upon who sets the conditions, no?

Wrote:

No, as the only condition setting for Logic to exist is for there to be things or states of affairs, as if there are things or states of affairs then they express the laws of Propositional Logic by their very existence.
I disagree such that following my request below might allow you to see what it is I'm talking about.

No, I didn't mean some meaningless theory, I meant real world.

In other words, give an example of this so called perfect logic, using prepositions of yours, using the same variables that you've indicated above, highlighted in blue.

[Arising_uk]

Something is the case or something is not the case.

It is not the case that something can be the case and can not the the case.

If something is the case then something else is the case. Something is the case. Something else is the case.

The grass is green or the grass is not green.

The grass cannot be green and not green.

If the grass is green then the sky is blue. The grass is green therefore the sky is blue.

There is a 'God' or there is not a 'God'.

'God' cannot exist and not exist.

If there is a 'God' then there is a 'Devil'. There is a 'God' therefore there is a 'Devil'.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Something is the case or something is not the case.

It is not the case that something can be the case and can not the the case.

If something is the case then something else is the case. Something is the case. Something else is the case.
This is not necessarily the case.

The grass is green or the grass is not green.

The grass cannot be green and not green.

If the grass is green then the sky is blue. The grass is green therefore the sky is blue.
You've got to be kidding me, this is a falsehood. Not only the logic contained in the first part, but nothing is any color at all, they merely reflect that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans can see called visible light.


There is a 'God' or there is not a 'God'.

'God' cannot exist and not exist.

If there is a 'God' then there is a 'Devil'. There is a 'God' therefore there is a 'Devil'.

And yet again.

Come on you can do better than that. I do know what those symbols represent, I took some logic, not much, but some.

[Arising_uk]

This is not necessarily the case.

Give me an example of where it isn't.

You've got to be kidding me, this is a falsehood. Not only the logic contained in the first part, but nothing is any color at all, they merely reflect that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans can see called visible light.

See the word "If"?

And yet again.

See the word "If"?

Come on you can do better than that. I do know what those symbols represent, I took some logic, not much, but some.

What do you think those symbols represent?

[SpheresOfBalance]

This is not necessarily the case.

Give me an example of where it isn't.

You've got to be kidding me, this is a falsehood. Not only the logic contained in the first part, but nothing is any color at all, they merely reflect that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans can see called visible light.

See the word "If"?

And yet again.

See the word "If"?

Come on you can do better than that. I do know what those symbols represent, I took some logic, not much, but some.

What do you think those symbols represent?

I'm sorry, it's been a while hasn't it.

I had asked:

Do you have any particular examples of propositional logic that has the gods bowing in subserviency?

As that is what you claimed you could provide.

I took it to mean that it was so profound that gods, as it's witness, would be left scratching their heads.

Please enlighten me as to this god perplexing logic.