(June 12, 2010 at 3:12 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 2:48 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

---

TFS wrote: "Philosophers use 'possible worlds' in a variety of ways, but always with the objective of saying something about our world. Illogical worlds can tell us precisely nothing about our world. Thus its very difficult to see what philosophical use they could be put to. In view of this, its hardly surprising that theres no literature on the subject. What could the literature possibly be about?"

---

I agree with you on this one. The "in all possible wolds" often used in philosophy differs from the "in all possible worlds" used in mathematics. The latter is short for "in all possible logical frameworks where a particular set X of axiomas holds" where in most cases X is specified, but not necessarily is about logical frameworks that apply to reality. The former is even more vague about what possible worlds are but strongly suggests they have something to do with reality. IMO this really is an attempt to make assertions on things one possibly cannot know. I side with Wittgenstein here: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

actually, caecilian wrote that i think but i agree with that too. define 'logical frameworks'. you keep saying that but we aren't talking about a framework here; at least i'm not talking about a framework. i'm just talking about logics. this whole branch is all a product of my response to someone saying that a universe is logical because of x property. i disagree that any universe should be considered logical based on a property unless that property is 'where we may formulate logical conclusions'. His or her choice of words was a product of confusing a reality with logics. confusing reality with logics is basically the theme of this thread (hence why i didn't try to start this topic in a different thread): atheists call theists illogical but that's not accurate since theists have made a conclusion based on premises in a logical manner just based on false premises in our opinion.

My apology if I erronuously attruibuted the quote to you.

Depends on what you mean by logics, I'd say. There is propositional logic, modal logic, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning and so on . There is no such a thing as 'just logics'. In a broad sense however 'logic' mostly refers to traditional propositional logic. But again, that logic is boolean (due to the law of the excluded middle, which is not a aw at all but an axioma, something you take for granted), it assumes that a statement is either true or false. In multi-valued logic such as quantum logic other values are allowed. And we're currently at the beginning of building computers on that!

So with a logical framework I mean the logic that is build and formalized on a explicitly stated specific set of axiomas such as the law of the excluded middle.

(June 12, 2010 at 3:33 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 3:12 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 2:48 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

---

TFS wrote: "Philosophers use 'possible worlds' in a variety of ways, but always with the objective of saying something about our world. Illogical worlds can tell us precisely nothing about our world. Thus its very difficult to see what philosophical use they could be put to. In view of this, its hardly surprising that theres no literature on the subject. What could the literature possibly be about?"

---

I agree with you on this one. The "in all possible wolds" often used in philosophy differs from the "in all possible worlds" used in mathematics. The latter is short for "in all possible logical frameworks where a particular set X of axiomas holds" where in most cases X is specified, but not necessarily is about logical frameworks that apply to reality. The former is even more vague about what possible worlds are but strongly suggests they have something to do with reality. IMO this really is an attempt to make assertions on things one possibly cannot know. I side with Wittgenstein here: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

actually, caecilian wrote that i think but i agree with that too. define 'logical frameworks'. you keep saying that but we aren't talking about a framework here; at least i'm not talking about a framework. i'm just talking about logics. this whole branch is all a product of my response to someone saying that a universe is logical because of x property. i disagree that any universe should be considered logical based on a property unless that property is 'where we may formulate logical conclusions'. His or her choice of words was a product of confusing a reality with logics. confusing reality with logics is basically the theme of this thread (hence why i didn't try to start this topic in a different thread): atheists call theists illogical but that's not accurate since theists have made a conclusion based on premises in a logical manner just based on false premises in our opinion.

My apology if I erronuously attruibuted the quote to you.

Depends on what you mean by logics, I'd say. There is propositional logic, modal logic, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning and so on . There is no such a thing as 'just logics'. In a broad sense however 'logic' mostly refers to traditional propositional logic. But again, that logic is boolean (due to the law of the excluded middle, which is not a aw at all but an axioma, something you take for granted), it assumes that a statement is either true or false. In multi-valued logic such as quantum logic other values are allowed. And we're currently at the beginning of building computers on that!

So with a logical framework I mean the logic that is build and formalized on a explicitly stated specific set of axiomas such as the law of the excluded middle.

even if there is a computational logic where different values are allowed instead of just 1 or 0, there is still no reason to believe an 'illogical universe' exists. what is 'quantum illogic' anyway?

(June 12, 2010 at 3:12 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: . a truth technically can be concluded from an illogical argument (where the premises are contradictory but the conclusion is true. that happens right?).

Not in my universe. If you mean that someone can claim truth from illogic, sure, it has been done. And it even is possible that the conclusion could be proven right from some other argument. But it would never amount to saying that the truth was technically established from illogic.

(June 12, 2010 at 3:12 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: ...but isn't suggesting that a universe is illogical suggesting that a 'truth' can arise from illogic? how would a thinking entity come to a truth about that universe if not by logics? or how would a thinking entity derive a truth in a universe from illogic? how could a thinking entity even exist in a universe where logics doesn't exist? empiricism is a whole other matter that still has nothing to do with simply logics.

Who said that 'truth' can arise from illogic? And when would you label a body of logical rules as illogic? Is quantum logic a logic that you would label 'illogic' because it is not compatible with propositional logic?

(June 12, 2010 at 3:12 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: I'm sure that Hilary Putnam has not thought to argue about logics in terms of many universes.

In fact he has. He first formulated his ideas (based on work of Reichenbach and Quine) in the sixties. Some critics complained however that he had left out the many world interpretation of QM. In 2005 he gave an update which expanded on the Everett Many World interpretation of QM.

(June 12, 2010 at 3:12 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: Maybe someone should email him and ask him if he thinks logics or even empirical logics would apply to any thinking agent or agent capable of logics of any universe. I bet he'll say 'yes' . i keep straying from my initial purpose of this whole argument: is there any reason to believe an illogical universe could exist? does the term 'illogical universe' have any meaning at all? if there is no reason to believe an illogical universe may exist and no meaning in the term 'illogical universe', saying a universe is logical becomes redundant.

I don't know if such an agent is needed to allow logic (any kind of logic that is) in these universes, but be careful, it certainly is an argument that theists are making and build on to construct gods.

If for you, as you seem to suggest in several places, illogic is everything that does not obey propositional logic, than in that vocabulary I'm forced to conclude that Putnam argues for the existence of illogical universes and that our universe is one of them. On the other hand, if you ask Putnam he would not use the term illogic for alternative logical frameworks such as quantum logic. So what's your choice of words?

i'm tired of formatting quotes. no quantum logic is not a logic i would label 'illogic'. quote Hilary saying that his arguments for empirical logic wouldn't work the same way for thinking entities in other universes or quote Hilary saying that a universe may be illogical. i don't think an agent is needed to 'allow' logic either as theists would have you believe (as you mention as well thus i agree with you).

my choice of words "if there is no reason to believe an illogical universe may exist and no meaning in the term 'illogical universe', saying a universe is logical becomes redundant." a logical universe: a universe where logical conclusions may be formulated by a thinking entity even if no thinking entity exists in that universe.

(June 12, 2010 at 4:26 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: i'm tired of formatting quotes.

Yeah man, it really sucks.

(June 12, 2010 at 4:26 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: no quantum logic is not a logic i would label 'illogic'. quote

OK, that clarifies some of the confusion.

(June 12, 2010 at 4:26 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: Hilary saying that his arguments for empirical logic wouldn't work the same way for thinking entities in other universes or quote Hilary saying that a universe may be illogical. i don't think an agent is needed to 'allow' logic either as theists would have you believe (as you mention as well thus i agree with you).
my choice of words "if there is no reason to believe an illogical universe may exist and no meaning in the term 'illogical universe', saying a universe is logical becomes redundant." a logical universe: a universe where logical conclusions may be formulated by a thinking entity even if no thinking entity exists in that universe.

The thing is that when we arrive at the conclusion that other kinds of logic are possible and we at the same time have no idea what alternatives might be out there, it is possible that alternatives that look illogical to us now might be feasible later. It is therefore that I say that the term "in all possible worlds" is a vacuous one.

(June 12, 2010 at 4:43 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 4:26 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: i'm tired of formatting quotes.

Yeah man, it really sucks.

(June 12, 2010 at 4:26 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: no quantum logic is not a logic i would label 'illogic'. quote

OK, that clarifies some of the confusion.

(June 12, 2010 at 4:26 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: Hilary saying that his arguments for empirical logic wouldn't work the same way for thinking entities in other universes or quote Hilary saying that a universe may be illogical. i don't think an agent is needed to 'allow' logic either as theists would have you believe (as you mention as well thus i agree with you).
my choice of words "if there is no reason to believe an illogical universe may exist and no meaning in the term 'illogical universe', saying a universe is logical becomes redundant." a logical universe: a universe where logical conclusions may be formulated by a thinking entity even if no thinking entity exists in that universe.

The thing is that when we arrive at the conclusion that other kinds of logic are possible and we at the same time have no idea what alternatives might be out there, it is possible that alternatives that look illogical to us now might be feasible later. It is therefore that I say that the term "in all possible worlds" is a vacuous one.

whatever alternatives should be feasible by logical means, right?

(June 12, 2010 at 4:57 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: whatever alternatives should be feasible by logical means, right?

Not necessarily.

Say A is a logical framework build on axiomas A1, A2 and A3
And B is a logical framework build on axiomas A1 and A3
And C is a logical framework build on axiomas A4 and A5

Then for everyone defining A as 'just logics' B would seem as adapted logic and C would seem illogic.
But for everyone defining C as 'just logics' A and B would seem illogic. So what is truth?

Consistency within a framework is no guarantee for consistency among frameworks.

PS: Is the law of identity, that holiest of holy in 'just logic', true for an electron in the double slit experiment?

(June 11, 2010 at 7:14 pm)Caecilian Wrote: I really like that. Its an elegant argument, and easy for a non-specialist like myself to follow. Good stuff.

Thanks...

(June 11, 2010 at 7:14 pm)Caecilian Wrote: 1. That any universe consists of a set of elements {1...n}.

Not necessarily, I've said any universe is a set of elements.

(June 11, 2010 at 7:14 pm)Caecilian Wrote: 2. That every element either exists or doesn't exist. Either E(x) or not E(x).

If at least one element exists, then the universe exists. If no elements exist, then the universe does not exist.
The problem is of presupposing the axiom that every universe can either exist or does not exist.

I'm not sure what you've really meant in (1), but I can see that (2) is more important.
One aspect of realism is the dimension of existence. For something to be real it should exist.
The question is, Is a universe without any axioms real?
I'm also thinking of, Isn't 'the empty set of axioms indicating such emptiness' an axiom?
Is a universe possible without the axiom of causality?

(June 12, 2010 at 2:27 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: No, they are mathematical descriptions of reality that use different axioms at their basis that make their mathematical formulation irreconcilable.

OK. They should share at least one mathematical axiom, for instance (a=a), since while writing a physics equation, one side of the equation must be dimensionally equal to its other side.

(June 12, 2010 at 5:06 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Then for everyone defining A as 'just logics' B would seem as adapted logic and C would seem illogic.
But for everyone defining C as 'just logics' A and B would seem illogic. So what is truth?

Therefore, in this respect, all universes are logical and illogical.

(June 12, 2010 at 11:25 am)Ramsin.Kh Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 2:27 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: No, they are mathematical descriptions of reality that use different axioms at their basis that make their mathematical formulation irreconcilable.

OK. They should share at least one mathematical axiom, for instance (a=a), since while writing a physics equation, one side of the equation must be dimensionally equal to its other side.

There is no rule that they should, you are just asserting that.

Some cross checking: If A=A is true for an electron in this universe in the double slit experiment, than what is it? Particle or wave?

(June 12, 2010 at 11:25 am)Ramsin.Kh Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 5:06 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Then for everyone defining A as 'just logics' B would seem as adapted logic and C would seem illogic.
But for everyone defining C as 'just logics' A and B would seem illogic. So what is truth?

Therefore, in this respect, all universes are logical and illogical.

Does that sound logical?