(June 12, 2010 at 2:09 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(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?

see. you're applying abstract shit to physics "a=a ... for an electron in the universe" that's confusing logics with reality. edit: i'm sorry for my choice of words. you are loosely applying a mathematical truth to the physical properties of a a subatomic particle. i'm not suggesting that "a=a", however you want to apply it, is a law of physics in any way.

(June 12, 2010 at 2:09 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: 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?

All matter, not just an electron, displays wave and particle properties.
An electron is an electron, it does manifest or becomes apparent as a wave and a particle, but that does not change what an electron is.

(June 12, 2010 at 2:09 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 11:25 am)Ramsin.Kh Wrote: Therefore, in this respect, all universes are logical and illogical.

Does that sound logical?

It depends, the answer is no if you consider the classical logical framework.

(June 12, 2010 at 5:06 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: 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

A non-traditional logical conclusion can be made since you've used axioms in your post,
A = {A1, A2, A3}
B = {A1, A3} => A ∩ B = {A1, A3}
C = {A4, A5} => A ≠ C ≠ B

(June 12, 2010 at 3:23 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: see. you're applying abstract shit to physics "a=a ... for an electron in the universe" that's confusing logics with reality. edit: i'm sorry for my choice of words. you are loosely applying a mathematical truth to the physical properties of a a subatomic particle. i'm not suggesting that "a=a", however you want to apply it, is a law of physics in any way.

Well, all of science is applying abstract shit to reality, isn't it? If A=A does not apply to reality than wtf does it apply to? The quest of science is just that, trying to apply abstract models to reality and see how far we can go with that. If that's confusing logic with reality. And I haven't applied it that loose. According to the law of identity a thing should constitute that very thing.

BTW, A=A is not a law of physics. It's at the basis of everyday logic. But if it does not hold in physical reality than what logic is there in reality? That's exactly my point, logic does not prescribe reality.

---

(June 12, 2010 at 3:35 pm)Ramsin.Kh Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 2:09 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: 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?

All matter, not just an electron, displays wave and particle properties.
An electron is an electron, it does manifest or becomes apparent as a wave and a particle, but that does not change what an electron is.

A particle cannot pass through both slits at once, still that's what experiment tells us. What evidence do you need to falsify A=A if this is not enough?

(June 12, 2010 at 3:35 pm)Ramsin.Kh Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 2:09 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 11:25 am)Ramsin.Kh Wrote: Therefore, in this respect, all universes are logical and illogical.

Does that sound logical?

It depends, the answer is no if you consider the classical logical framework.

(June 12, 2010 at 5:06 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: 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

A non-traditional logical conclusion can be made since you've used axioms in your post,
A = {A1, A2, A3}
B = {A1, A3} => A ∩ B = {A1, A3}
C = {A4, A5} => A ≠ C ≠ B

That's right. A ≠ C ≠ B, different unreconcilable logical frameworks.

(June 12, 2010 at 4:11 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: A particle cannot pass through both slits at once, still that's what experiment tells us. What evidence do you need to falsify A=A if this is not enough?

What exactly is (A) when you consider this particular experiment?
If something appears illogical at least in our universe, that is probably because human has not yet understood the heart of the process, in this case the double slits experiment.

Rutherford first expected for his alpha particles penetrating the thin golden leaf to be deflected, but most of them went straight forward. For a person at that time, this might have been someway illogical. After a while, logical explanations started to come up.

(June 12, 2010 at 4:59 pm)Ramsin.Kh Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 4:11 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: A particle cannot pass through both slits at once, still that's what experiment tells us. What evidence do you need to falsify A=A if this is not enough?

What exactly is (A) when you consider this particular experiment?
If something appears illogical at least in our universe, that is probably because human has not yet understood the heart of the process, in this case the double slits experiment.

That's true and that's why we are left with a bunch of QM interpretations. Also it shows that 'just logics', being the classic boolean propositional logic, might fail at describing reality in detail.

You tell me how A=A should be applied to reality knowing that a particle can be at two plces at the same time. If it cannot be applied to the things in reality what use has it and what does that mean for clasic boolean logic that is so innate in our thinking?

(June 12, 2010 at 4:11 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Rutherford first expected for his alpha particles penetrating the thin golden leaf to be deflected, but most of them went straight forward. For a person at that time, this might have been illogical. After a while, logical explanations started to come up.

This example is of quite another magnitude than QM. Rutherford's is about not knowing the physical properties of the atom up front. The double slit experiment is about one particle being simultanuously at two places.

(June 12, 2010 at 6:22 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: You tell me how A=A should be applied to reality knowing that a particle can be at two plces at the same time. If it cannot be applied to the things in reality what use has it and what does that mean for clasic boolean logic that is so innate in our thinking?

Is many-valued logical framework applicable here?

(June 12, 2010 at 6:22 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: This example is of quite another magnitude than QM. Rutherford's is about not knowing the physical properties of the atom up front. The double slit experiment is about one particle being simultanuously at two places.

I know what the double slits experiment is, I just wanted to show an example (using Rutherford's experiment) of how illogical things can appear if we can't clearly understand them.

just because something contradicts 'reality' doesn't mean it's illogical. (the whole point of this post was to illustrate that just because some of the premises believed by theists are contradictory to science, they are still logically deducing a conclusion from these premises. an argument can be logical but not true.

an electron = electron even if it has wave-particle behavior. Remember spherical triangles. There is such a thing we call spherical triangles but they aren't strictly (or the triangles we refer to in Euclidean geometry) triangles or spherical; they are in their own category. Considering the nature of electrons we could say, as in the way we categorize spherical triangles, 'electrons aren't strictly waves or particles'. Saying that an electron has a dual nature is not the same as saying that 'something exists and doesn't exist at the same time' which is paradoxical or illogical. in plain English electron ≠ electron means 'electron is not electron' doesn't make sense, even in its dual nature, huh?

(June 12, 2010 at 6:30 pm)Ramsin.Kh Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 6:22 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: You tell me how A=A should be applied to reality knowing that a particle can be at two plces at the same time. If it cannot be applied to the things in reality what use has it and what does that mean for clasic boolean logic that is so innate in our thinking?

Is many-valued logical framework applicable here?

The jury is still out on that. That's what the different QM interpretations are about.

(June 12, 2010 at 11:00 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: just because something contradicts 'reality' doesn't mean it's illogical. (the whole point of this post was to illustrate that just because some of the premises believed by theists are contradictory to science, they are still logically deducing a conclusion from these premises. an argument can be logical but not true.

Your usage of 'logical' and 'illogical' is just too vague. You can only talk about what is illogical when you have defined what you mean by logical. Sure, if you define it wide enough anything goes and the label will fit anything.

But that's not what logic as a serious discipline of human thought is concerned with. That business looks at what is at its basis and has found distinct logical frameworks that are not compatible with each other. Currently, or rather for several decades now, a debate is going on within the logic discipline on what is the relation between these frameworks and reality. A fascinating area of logic. I haven't made this up myself, you can find this on the net. Hans Reichenbach, WV Quine, Hilary Putnam aren't just some loonies. This is real debate in logic and philosophy driven by the startling empirical results found in QM and other areas.

If you adopt propositional logic with its three basic principles/laws/axiomas as the basis of logic for all, you are forced to conclude that quantum logic isn't logical. In common language terms as 'logical' and 'illogical' are used rather loosely and 'illogical' soon becomes an ill defined category. But IMO this only is a word game. I prefer to avoid the term 'illogical' in these cases but rather would use terms as 'distinct logic' or 'alternative logic'. The question is still open on what logic applies to our reality.

As to theists, I believe this discusion on logic is beyond them in 99,999999% of the cases. Take the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) for instance, one of the more elaborate logical theists' argument that I know of. It's a theistic argument that takes boolean propositional logic at it's core, i.e.:
1. Law of identity: 'Whatever is, is.'
2. Law of noncontradiction: 'Nothing can both be and not be.'
3. Law of excluded middle: 'Everything must either be or not be.'
But it fails to acknowledge that our reality might not obey these rules on every level. So, I agree they are still deducing a logical conclusion, but not just some 'common logic'. They are using a specific logic (boolean propositional logic), which in short is the idea that judgements about reality are either true or false. So in effect they are not just using logic in some wide sense, they quite openly are using a distinct kind of logic, propositional logic, that currently fails to describe reality at the quantum level. IOW they define the three laws as absolute truth without questioning and they are not interested in how this realtes to reality. IMO the very fact that reality through empirical results tells a different story is a quite convincing argument that all truth claims should be evidence-based, that thought constructs alone should not be trusted as to pertain to reality.

(June 12, 2010 at 11:00 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: an electron = electron even if it has wave-particle behavior. Remember spherical triangles. There is such a thing we call spherical triangles but they aren't strictly (or the triangles we refer to in Euclidean geometry) triangles or spherical; they are in their own category. Considering the nature of electrons we could say, as in the way we categorize spherical triangles, 'electrons aren't strictly waves or particles'. Saying that an electron has a dual nature is not the same as saying that 'something exists and doesn't exist at the same time' which is paradoxical or illogical. in plain English electron ≠ electron means 'electron is not electron' doesn't make sense, even in its dual nature, huh?

Here also things tend to end in word games and loose juggling with ill defined terms. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that such is done deliberatedly. The spherical triangle really is a specific patch on a sphere enclosed by three arcs in Euclidean Geometry. Its fancy and intruiging name suggests it harbours a contradiction but cannot hide its rather mundaine nature when you know how it is defined in geometry. It's nothing special, but it isn't a triangle and it isn't a sphere as defined in EG. It's a fancy name for a specific patch on a sphere. But don't let this name fool you into thinking that triangles can be spherical at the same time in the sense the EG's core definitions on spheres and triangles.

For an electron it is quite another story. Normally particle behaviour is not compatible with wavelike behaviour on the macroscopic level we as humans observe. Combining these two different behaviours on the same object is what constitutes the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, i.e. particle = wave. But there have been considerable problems with the Copenhagen Interpretation (regarding the collapse of the wave function) one of which is known as the Schrodinger's Cat paradox, leading to the conclusion that living = dead which clearly violates A=A as ever there was a way to demonstrate that violation. Since Schrodinger some progress has been made however (for instance by introducing the quantum decoherence) so in the embellished Copenhagen Interpretation A=A might still be true. But the point is that the conclusion cannot be up front that the logical basis we depart from is never susceptible to adaptation and that in short is what Hilary Putnam put forward.

(June 4, 2010 at 9:26 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote:

(June 4, 2010 at 10:55 am)remza Wrote: The main point he was trying to make is that in cases where science is not our source of information, we cannot automatically assume that reason has ceased to function and evidence has ceased to be relevant.

I'm not totally sure what you trying to say. I tried to come up with an example of what you may be trying to say: well, if someone was flying in public, which is totally contradictory to what we knew for sure (this new phenomena of a person flying would mark a new era in science, and before that would be the 'post unnatural flight science'), someone is still flying no matter how contradictory this new phenomena is and now this phenomena is simply incorporated into science or human knowledge.

Let me know if I'm on the same page with you with my example. But what I was truly trying to say in the thread was simply that a person may be logical on false or unsubstantiated premises and calling a theist 'illogical' is inaccurate. The theists response to this is that his beliefs/conclusions are based on logical arguments.

Not really I’m afraid. I was attempting to make a related point regarding the idea of theists being illogical but also hinting at the scope/limits of science. Theists will claim that there are certain questions which unaided reason cannot answer and to answer them we need another source of information - revelation from God, to understand and evaluate which, reason is essential.

I.e.
1) Data from nature
2) Data from revelation
Both require reason to understand, so revelation cannot be opposed to reason.