Philosophy Now Forum

“The Universe has a snese”; is it logical?

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 10:57 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:28 pm Logic is its own science.

You clearly didn't read my first post. Read again, more carefully:

By science of logic, I mean a scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings, investigation that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:28 pmYou might as well ask why no science of science.

Where would be the problem?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:28 pmWhat would this thing look like exactly?

Like cognitive science for example. It already exists. The only problem is that it doesn't qualify as a science of logic because cognitive scientists merely assume as correct the definition of logic proposed by mathematicians, even though mathematicians never conducted any scientific investigation of logic (as i defined it in my first post).
EB

I think you are going round in circles of your own design.
You are confusing a study with a methodology.
Try and draw a distinction.

I think it is related to there being a lack of con - science whence to derive (!)

For example, if the universe is a toroidal form, mapping a basic torus field would be the first step:



This would "change" how logic is presently handled:

A ≠ A
A = *A
___________
*variable (+) and/or (-) allowing for (e)motion(s)

In such a mapping, any conceivable situation can be reduced into its 'real' and 'imaginary' roots (if/when applicable).

For example, if the universe is "governed" by two "trees", say, √+A and √-A,
(one leading to all suffering/death, the other the absence of suffering/death)
the problem of human suffering can be solved for by assigning operators
"alpha" (ie. all) and "omega" (ie. not) to +A and -A (resp.)
yielding a beginning-to-end 'framework' that solves the root(s) of anything,
including suffering/death.

*A = I am
+A and -A = the alpha and the omega
√+A and √-A the beginning and the end

Humanity still has not developed such a practical science of 'real' logic wherein 'imaginary' is a valid domain.
It is really logical to frame any problem/solution using the same 'framework' the universe is (!)
which invariably contains unreal, imaginary belief-based nonsense(s) invariably causing suffering/death.
However, this presently escapes humanity for their need to cling to such "belief"-based ignorance(s)
for having no conscious knowledge of the same.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:56 pm Why no science of logic?

By logic, I mean deductive logic.

By science of logic, I mean a scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings, investigation that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.

I can't think of any important aspect of the empirical world which is similarly neglected by science.

There doesn't seem to be any practical impossibility.

Cost would not be a significant factor.

Logic seems to be a rather crucial aspect of human intelligence, which is itself at the centre of the very costly drive to produce artificial intelligence systems. The usefulness of an accurate formal model of logic seems therefore beyond question.

So, 2,400 years after Aristotle, why is there still, in the 21st century, no science of logic?
EB

maybe logic-al thinking is an instinct, and so noting more than the other instincts...........aid to survival, but not an related to Truth - whatever that may be.

A humorous interlude.

Norm`s use of logic.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Oseqh7SMIvo

Why no science of logic?

By logic, I mean deductive logic.

By science of logic, I mean a scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings, investigation that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.

I can't think of any important aspect of the empirical world which is similarly neglected by science.

There doesn't seem to be any practical impossibility.

Cost would not be a significant factor.

Logic seems to be a rather crucial aspect of human intelligence, which is itself at the centre of the very costly drive to produce artificial intelligence systems. The usefulness of an accurate formal model of logic seems therefore beyond question.

So, 2,400 years after Aristotle, why is there still, in the 21st century, no science of logic?
EB

I am wondering, can sense be made of this at all? A science of logic: Science is known for its rigor, its uncompromising standards that put forth idea only if grounded in observation and the facts of the world. But logic has no factual nature, if you define facts as affairs in the world. Logic is simply tautology made complex, and its rigor is right out there on its sleeve. Analytically true propositions are irrefutable...and vacuous.

The closest anyone ever came was Husserl. See his Ideas, where he identifies the ideational content of empirical concepts. Here, he claims there is a very rigorous "science" that rules the "logic" of thinking in the relations between ideas that are in play when we think about the world. A chair, for example, is, in thought and reason, a body of ideas we associate with a chair, and when science takes up these, it is the ideas in play, not the actuality (sensual intuitions).

You say deductive logic, and it is here Husserl has your point: ideas ARE deductively related, but that gets slippery, for one cannot know fully know the whole of deductive possibilities of a chair, for one cannot know the possibilities, which are infinite and undisclosed. consider: ask, how many facts are there in a given chair? How many centimeters is one of these from the sun? Where is a given chair vis a vis eternity? Just in terms of common facts, there are an infinite number. Quantum physics adds new facts. Tomorrow's physics will add more. And so on.

You would have to clarify your question. Science of logic???

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:56 pm Why no science of logic?

By logic, I mean deductive logic.

By science of logic, I mean a scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings, investigation that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.

I can't think of any important aspect of the empirical world which is similarly neglected by science.

There doesn't seem to be any practical impossibility.

Cost would not be a significant factor.

Logic seems to be a rather crucial aspect of human intelligence, which is itself at the centre of the very costly drive to produce artificial intelligence systems. The usefulness of an accurate formal model of logic seems therefore beyond question.

So, 2,400 years after Aristotle, why is there still, in the 21st century, no science of logic?
EB

Does this meet your bar? It's even in French.

Logic 2.0

I'd be interested if we can get a translation of that?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:51 am I'd be interested if we can get a translation of that?

I've sent Girard an e-mail begging him to write it in English...

Until a he (or some other human) gets around to it - use Google's "document translation" https://translate.google.com/?tr=f&hl=e ... auto&tl=en

Much of the content/ideas are an evolutionary progression on his past works on transcendental syntax so the content isn't too hard to follow.

Ta, I'll follow up.
But just to get up to date are we saying that the continental philosophers have taken Anglo-American Analytic Philosophy onboard now and are trying to reinvoke Leibniz's dream?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:59 am Ta, I'll follow up.
But just to get up to date are we saying that the continental philosophers have taken Anglo-American Analytic Philosophy onboard now and are trying to reinvoke Leibniz's dream?

As an interpretation - it probably hits the mark at 90%.

He's more lucid than that - he is well aware that only language can explain language and acknowledges there's no way around that. But he also heavily critiques Mathematical/analytical reductionism for its model-theoretic incompleteness.

He also seems pretty on-board with the idea that formal languages/syntaxes are just the technology of our day with which knowledge is constructed.
Linear logic happens to be the logic of quantum information - it's the monist metaphysic of physicists. It localized time.

Whatever the next iteration in a scientific paradigm is going to be, it needs a higher order logic than that. It needs 2nd order time.
Higher levels of abstraction allow you to "prove" (express?) more complex interactions.

Godel already told us that Liebnitz' dream is unattainable. Consistency and completeness are opposing goals. Choose one.
Girard chooses completeness. Consistency is an internal property to the system.

His words: "I am not a linear logician."

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:09 am

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:56 pm Why no science of logic?

By logic, I mean deductive logic.

By science of logic, I mean a scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings, investigation that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.

I can't think of any important aspect of the empirical world which is similarly neglected by science.

There doesn't seem to be any practical impossibility.

Cost would not be a significant factor.

Logic seems to be a rather crucial aspect of human intelligence, which is itself at the centre of the very costly drive to produce artificial intelligence systems. The usefulness of an accurate formal model of logic seems therefore beyond question.

So, 2,400 years after Aristotle, why is there still, in the 21st century, no science of logic?
EB

maybe logic-al thinking is an instinct, and so noting more than the other instincts...........aid to survival, but not an related to Truth - whatever that may be.

The most plausible explanation to human logic is natural selection, so somewhat similar to an instinct. But then instincts are studied scientifically. Why not logic?
EB

odysseus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:37 am I am wondering, can sense be made of this at all? A science of logic: Science is known for its rigor, its uncompromising standards that put forth idea only if grounded in observation and the facts of the world. But logic has no factual nature, if you define facts as affairs in the world. Logic is simply tautology made complex, and its rigor is right out there on its sleeve. Analytically true propositions are irrefutable...and vacuous.

The closest anyone ever came was Husserl. See his Ideas, where he identifies the ideational content of empirical concepts. Here, he claims there is a very rigorous "science" that rules the "logic" of thinking in the relations between ideas that are in play when we think about the world. A chair, for example, is, in thought and reason, a body of ideas we associate with a chair, and when science takes up these, it is the ideas in play, not the actuality (sensual intuitions).

You say deductive logic, and it is here Husserl has your point: ideas ARE deductively related, but that gets slippery, for one cannot know fully know the whole of deductive possibilities of a chair, for one cannot know the possibilities, which are infinite and undisclosed. consider: ask, how many facts are there in a given chair? How many centimeters is one of these from the sun? Where is a given chair vis a vis eternity? Just in terms of common facts, there are an infinite number. Quantum physics adds new facts. Tomorrow's physics will add more. And so on.

You would have to clarify your question. Science of logic???

I already clarified.

By logic, I mean deductive logic.

By science of logic, I mean a scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings, investigation that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.

Logic seems to be a rather crucial aspect of human intelligence, which is itself at the centre of the very costly drive to produce artificial intelligence systems. The usefulness of an accurate formal model of logic seems therefore beyond question.

EB

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:16 am

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:56 pm Why no science of logic?

By logic, I mean deductive logic.

By science of logic, I mean a scientific investigation of logic as objective performance and manifest capability of human beings, investigation that would try to develop a formal model of logic which would be accurate and operational.

I can't think of any important aspect of the empirical world which is similarly neglected by science.

There doesn't seem to be any practical impossibility.

Cost would not be a significant factor.

Logic seems to be a rather crucial aspect of human intelligence, which is itself at the centre of the very costly drive to produce artificial intelligence systems. The usefulness of an accurate formal model of logic seems therefore beyond question.

So, 2,400 years after Aristotle, why is there still, in the 21st century, no science of logic?
EB

Does this meet your bar? It's even in French.

Logic 2.0

Not science, and not even bad logic.

Somewhat like you, only much less incoherent.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 9:07 pm Not science, and not even bad logic.

Somewhat like you, only much less incoherent.
EB

Let me give you a quick lesson on (in)coherence...

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:57 pm an accurate formal model of logic seems therefore beyond question.

That expression right there. Is incoherent.

All "formal models" in modern-day science are Mathematical. First order formal logic is the shoulders upon which Mathematics rests.
First order formal logic rests upon predicate logic.

So if any "formal model" of logic is to be produced, in what formal system might it be expressed exactly?