Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Here comes another question, whether those universes are in a system with each others or are totally set apart from each others?
There is no evidence for something to be totally separated, since every known and predicted entity is in a system.
Even if a universe appears to be totally isolated, you can think of it and compare it to another. Its existence is possible because you're comparing it to others by using axioms. Therefore that universe should be in a system.
If those universes are in a system, then all of them should share at least one fundamental axiom.
I don't think that it is particularly fruitful to talk about universes with different (or no) axioms. Apart from anything else, its extremely difficult to do so, since its difficult/ impossible to actually conceive of what such universes would be like. And given this, its hard to see what role they can play in philosophical discussions.
Ime, philosophers are concerned with 2 sorts of possible world/ universe:
- Logically possible worlds. That is: worlds that share our logic, but not necessarily our physical laws.
- Nomologically possible worlds. That is: worlds which have the same physical laws as ours, but may be different in other respects.
Clearly, the set of nomologically possible worlds is a subset of the set of logically possible worlds.
what other aspects would be different about a nomological world? 'logically possible'. k a world, reality, or universe whatever is only 'logically possible' under some premise, perhaps the premise that "there are an infinite set of worlds of varying physical axioms" but whether or not a universe is logical or illogical is a different matter. a universe can't be 'illogical' There may be a universe where bigger objects fall faster and maybe the curvature of space has nothing to do with it, sure, but you would be able to form logical arguments based on this new physics. i would really like to read philosophers talk about logics in terms of multiple universes. I highly doubt that any reputable philosopher is saying there may be 'illogical universes'.
(June 10, 2010 at 2:53 pm)Caecilian Wrote:
(June 10, 2010 at 2:39 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote:
spherical triangles... ugh. why did you even bring that up? it's a tangent that there is a group of shapes called spherical triangles. You can't think of a universe were x = x would not be a starting point because it's illogical. it's like saying God can do the logically impossible or the illogical like make edged circles... Sure you can say it but it's senseless. this discussion parallels arguments against a deity that doesn't need to be created, and you're the one saying 'God exists outside of our universe, he doesn't need to be created.' You're reasoning looks the same: "just because you can't imagine it or find reason in it, doesn't mean it's not true"
We're talking about other universes here. In our own universe, the rules of our logic apply. Something akin to 'god' might exist in another universe- no reason why not. But in our universe, 'god' is incoherent nonsense. As for spherical triangles- you're the one who brought the subject of triangles up. I agree that its tangential to the thread.
i brought triangles up with fake properties not so you could find out that there is a group of shapes which aren't strictly triangles anyway... this huge branch of this thread is a tangent but i think it's really important. i think this branch is still example of atheists confusing logics with reality. saying other universes exist is not much different than saying a deity exists, in my opinion, despite the scientists that support the possibility. but whether not other universes exist has nothing to do with whether or not an illogical universe can exist or has meaning at all.
my saying that the 'god exists out of our universe' discussion parallels this discussion is off. since sure it's possible that deities exist outside of our universe, meaningless, but sure; I'm saying that there are no illogical universes because an intelligence in any universe would have to be able to make logical arguments. if you go to another universe, you should be able to deduce something logically about that universe. if there is no reason that you would be illogical (incapable of forming logical conclusions) in another universe, there is no reason to believe that there could be a reason you would be illogical (bertrand russell). I guess there is no way for me to prove that every universe is logical but there is no reason to believe in an illogical universe. We haven't even defined an illogical universe besides 'a universe where it's impossible to come to logical conclusions'. What is that supposed to mean?
'i think therefore i exist' should be an axiom for all universes.
Here comes another question, whether those universes are in a system with each others or are totally set apart from each others?
There is no evidence for something to be totally separated, since every known and predicted entity is in a system.
Even if a universe appears to be totally isolated, you can think of it and compare it to another. Its existence is possible because you're comparing it to others by using axioms. Therefore that universe should be in a system.
If those universes are in a system, then all of them should share at least one fundamental axiom.
I don't think that it is particularly fruitful to talk about universes with different (or no) axioms. Apart from anything else, its extremely difficult to do so, since its difficult/ impossible to actually conceive of what such universes would be like. And given this, its hard to see what role they can play in philosophical discussions.
Ime, philosophers are concerned with 2 sorts of possible world/ universe:
- Logically possible worlds. That is: worlds that share our logic, but not necessarily our physical laws.
- Nomologically possible worlds. That is: worlds which have the same physical laws as ours, but may be different in other respects.
Clearly, the set of nomologically possible worlds is a subset of the set of logically possible worlds.
what other aspects would be different about a nomological world? 'logically possible'. k a world, reality, or universe whatever is only 'logically possible' under some premise, perhaps the premise that "there are an infinite set of worlds of varying physical axioms" but whether or not a universe is logical or illogical is a different matter. a universe can't be 'illogical' There may be a universe where bigger objects fall faster and maybe the curvature of space has nothing to do with it, sure, but you would be able to form logical arguments based on this new physics. i would really like to read philosophers talk about logics in terms of multiple universes. I highly doubt that any reputable philosopher is saying there may be 'illogical universes'.
(June 10, 2010 at 2:53 pm)Caecilian Wrote:
(June 10, 2010 at 2:39 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: spherical triangles... ugh. why did you even bring that up? it's a tangent that there is a group of shapes called spherical triangles. You can't think of a universe were x = x would not be a starting point because it's illogical. it's like saying God can do the logically impossible or the illogical like make edged circles... Sure you can say it but it's senseless. this discussion parallels arguments against a deity that doesn't need to be created, and you're the one saying 'God exists outside of our universe, he doesn't need to be created.' You're reasoning looks the same: "just because you can't imagine it or find reason in it, doesn't mean it's not true"
We're talking about other universes here. In our own universe, the rules of our logic apply. Something akin to 'god' might exist in another universe- no reason why not. But in our universe, 'god' is incoherent nonsense. As for spherical triangles- you're the one who brought the subject of triangles up. I agree that its tangential to the thread.
i brought triangles up with fake properties not so you could find out that there is a group of shapes which aren't strictly triangles anyway... this huge branch of this thread is a tangent but i think it's really important. i think this branch is still example of atheists confusing logics with reality. saying other universes exist is not much different than saying a deity exists, in my opinion, despite the scientists that support the possibility. but whether not other universes exist has nothing to do with whether or not an illogical universe can exist or has meaning at all.
my saying that the 'god exists out of our universe' discussion parallels this discussion is off. since sure it's possible that deities exist outside of our universe, meaningless, but sure; I'm saying that there are no illogical universes because an intelligence in any universe would have to be able to make logical arguments. if you go to another universe, you should be able to deduce something logically about that universe. if there is no reason that you would be illogical (incapable of forming logical conclusions) in another universe, there is no reason to believe that there could be a reason you would be illogical (bertrand russell). I guess there is no way for me to prove that every universe is logical but there is no reason to believe in an illogical universe. We haven't even defined an illogical universe besides 'a universe where it's impossible to come to logical conclusions'. What is that supposed to mean?
'i think therefore i exist' should be an axiom for all universes.
You make a lot of points here. I'll try to answer the main ones.
An example of a nomologically possible world: A world in which Gore, rather than Bush Jr, became president in 2000.
An example of a logically possible world: A universe of giant pink beachballs. Our logic still holds, and the beachballs obey physical laws, which differ somewhat from ours. These worlds correspond to the worlds with 'new physics' that you mention.
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?
Tbh, I'm amazed that we've spent so much time discussing this ourselves!
And no, theres no way for you to prove that all universes are logical. Nor is there any way for me to prove that illogical universes are actually possible.
He who desires to worship God must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.
Mikhail Bakunin
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything
Friedrich Nietzsche
Here comes another question, whether those universes are in a system with each others or are totally set apart from each others?
There is no evidence for something to be totally separated, since every known and predicted entity is in a system.
Even if a universe appears to be totally isolated, you can think of it and compare it to another. Its existence is possible because you're comparing it to others by using axioms. Therefore that universe should be in a system.
If those universes are in a system, then all of them should share at least one fundamental axiom.
I don't think that it is particularly fruitful to talk about universes with different (or no) axioms. Apart from anything else, its extremely difficult to do so, since its difficult/ impossible to actually conceive of what such universes would be like. And given this, its hard to see what role they can play in philosophical discussions.
Ime, philosophers are concerned with 2 sorts of possible world/ universe:
- Logically possible worlds. That is: worlds that share our logic, but not necessarily our physical laws.
- Nomologically possible worlds. That is: worlds which have the same physical laws as ours, but may be different in other respects.
Clearly, the set of nomologically possible worlds is a subset of the set of logically possible worlds.
what other aspects would be different about a nomological world? 'logically possible'. k a world, reality, or universe whatever is only 'logically possible' under some premise, perhaps the premise that "there are an infinite set of worlds of varying physical axioms" but whether or not a universe is logical or illogical is a different matter. a universe can't be 'illogical' There may be a universe where bigger objects fall faster and maybe the curvature of space has nothing to do with it, sure, but you would be able to form logical arguments based on this new physics. i would really like to read philosophers talk about logics in terms of multiple universes. I highly doubt that any reputable philosopher is saying there may be 'illogical universes'.
(June 10, 2010 at 2:53 pm)Caecilian Wrote:
(June 10, 2010 at 2:39 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: spherical triangles... ugh. why did you even bring that up? it's a tangent that there is a group of shapes called spherical triangles. You can't think of a universe were x = x would not be a starting point because it's illogical. it's like saying God can do the logically impossible or the illogical like make edged circles... Sure you can say it but it's senseless. this discussion parallels arguments against a deity that doesn't need to be created, and you're the one saying 'God exists outside of our universe, he doesn't need to be created.' You're reasoning looks the same: "just because you can't imagine it or find reason in it, doesn't mean it's not true"
We're talking about other universes here. In our own universe, the rules of our logic apply. Something akin to 'god' might exist in another universe- no reason why not. But in our universe, 'god' is incoherent nonsense. As for spherical triangles- you're the one who brought the subject of triangles up. I agree that its tangential to the thread.
i brought triangles up with fake properties not so you could find out that there is a group of shapes which aren't strictly triangles anyway... this huge branch of this thread is a tangent but i think it's really important. i think this branch is still example of atheists confusing logics with reality. saying other universes exist is not much different than saying a deity exists, in my opinion, despite the scientists that support the possibility. but whether not other universes exist has nothing to do with whether or not an illogical universe can exist or has meaning at all.
my saying that the 'god exists out of our universe' discussion parallels this discussion is off. since sure it's possible that deities exist outside of our universe, meaningless, but sure; I'm saying that there are no illogical universes because an intelligence in any universe would have to be able to make logical arguments. if you go to another universe, you should be able to deduce something logically about that universe. if there is no reason that you would be illogical (incapable of forming logical conclusions) in another universe, there is no reason to believe that there could be a reason you would be illogical (bertrand russell). I guess there is no way for me to prove that every universe is logical but there is no reason to believe in an illogical universe. We haven't even defined an illogical universe besides 'a universe where it's impossible to come to logical conclusions'. What is that supposed to mean?
'i think therefore i exist' should be an axiom for all universes.
You make a lot of points here. I'll try to answer the main ones.
An example of a nomologically possible world: A world in which Gore, rather than Bush Jr, became president in 2000.
An example of a logically possible world: A universe of giant pink beachballs. Our logic still holds, and the beachballs obey physical laws, which differ somewhat from ours. These worlds correspond to the worlds with 'new physics' that you mention.
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?
Tbh, I'm amazed that we've spent so much time discussing this ourselves!
And no, theres no way for you to prove that all universes are logical. Nor is there any way for me to prove that illogical universes are actually possible.
yeah... we had a lot of discussion but I agree with you: We can't prove that all universes are logical (we can only fathom universes where we may make logical conclusions) but there is no way to prove that an illogical universe is possible at all. i'm glad we cleared this up.
what could the literature be about?" well... i think the question is really cool: how do you prove that logic may exist in all possible realities? is it possible? right now, i don't think we can prove all universes are logical but we can't imagine an illogical universe. I'd like to see reputable mathematicians and philosophers discuss this question. "should our math be applicable or useful in describing the physical events of any universe? (which is not asking if all the physical laws will be the same)" I still think these are interesting philosophical questions. i still think that X≠0 ⇒ N∈X ⇒ N≠0 holds for all logical universes.
I'm not sure how the question of whether or nor logic/ maths applies in all universes could possibly be answered. I strongly suspect that it couldn't be. But then I'm not a logician or a mathematician, so I may well be wrong.
He who desires to worship God must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.
Mikhail Bakunin
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything
Friedrich Nietzsche
June 11, 2010 at 5:11 pm (This post was last modified: June 12, 2010 at 10:08 am by Ramsin.Kh.)
Here is an attempt, let's say that the set (N) is the collection of all the universes, whether logical or illogical.
N = {X, Y, Z, ...}
The elements (X), (Y) and (Z) are just existent real universes.
Notice that (N) does not necessarily exist in reality, in this case, it's an abstracted mental idea.
The elements of (N) do exist only if each of them contain something.
Every element/universe can be considered as smaller set, a subset, so:
X = {...}
Y = {...}
For a universe to exist, it should contain something. If a universe contains nothing then it's as good to say that such a universe does not exist, since even space and time have quantities and are something, therefore:
If: X = {A, B, ...} => This universe does exist.
If: Y = ∅ = {} => This universe does not exist and should be removed from (N) since (N) is a set for the existent universes.
For (X), its existence is an axiom, therefore it is logical and has no empty set of axioms.
For (Y), we know that it does not exist, it has an empty set of axioms, therefore no logical conclusions can be made of that.
Therefore: N ≠ ∅
All existent universes should at least share one axiom and that is the existence axiom:
(Axioms of Universe X) ∩ (Axioms of Universe Z) = [The axiom of existence]
Here is an attempt, let's say that the set (N) is the collection of all the universes, whether logical or illogical.
N = {X, Y, Z, ...}
The elements (X), (Y) and (Z) are just existent real universes.
Notice that (N) does not necessarily exist in reality, in this case, it's an abstracted mental idea.
The elements of (N) do exist only if each of them contain something.
Every element/universe can be considered as smaller set, a subset, so:
X = {...}
Y = {...}
For a universe to exist, it should contain something. If a universe contains nothing then it's as good to say that such a universe does not exist, since even space and time have quantities and are something, therefore:
If: X = {A, B, ...} => This universe does exist.
If: Y = ∅ = {} => This universe does not exist and should be removed from (N) since (N) is a set for the existent universes.
For (X), its existence is an axiom, therefore it is logical and has no empty set of axioms.
For (Y), we know that it does not exist, it has an empty set of axioms, therefore no logical conclusions can be made of that.
Therefore: N ≠ ∅
All existent universes should at least share one axiom and that is the existence axiom:
(Axioms of Universe A) ∩ (Axioms of Universe B) = [The axiom of existence]
I really like that. Its an elegant argument, and easy for a non-specialist like myself to follow. Good stuff.
There is a possible counter-argument that I can think of. I'm not sure if its sound or not, but here it is anyway:
What you're assuming here is that certain categories are applicable to all possible universes. For example, you assume that any universe can be described as a set of elements, and that there is a fact of the matter as to whether or not these elements exist. Put another way, you're pre-supposing at least 2 axioms:
1. That any universe consists of a set of elements {1...n}.
2. That every element either exists or doesn't exist. Either E(x) or not E(x).
These are unwarranted assumptions. If a universe really is illogical, then theres not reason to suppose that such axioms apply.
He who desires to worship God must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.
Mikhail Bakunin
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything
Friedrich Nietzsche
June 12, 2010 at 2:27 am (This post was last modified: June 12, 2010 at 2:31 am by Purple Rabbit.)
TFS wrote:" [deleted all the useless stuff and added bold emphasis] Whatever logic that was derived, based on, or refers to quantum mechanics was derived from 'normal logic' and that is what Ramsin said in slightly different words."
The condescending tone in your bracketed reply is no invitation to substantiate any points. Please let me know if you want any discussion at all or are solely interested in your own conclusion. It saves typing.
Quantum mechanics is not derived from logic, but from empirical results such as the double slit experiments in nature, results that have no simple interpretation in terms of traditional logic. Currently there are more than 5 interpretations of QM to choose from. These interpretations each defy aspects of traditional logic. In some there is particle-wave duality (please appreciater what this means, i.e. that the very nature of a thing in our universe is twofold at the same time), in some there is time travel of information back in time and so on. Each of these interpretations constitutes a different logic. Nobody has been able to reconcile these interpretations or to weed out a winning QM interpretation. This is by no means a simple problem to solve. Einstein found it troublesome. The Feynman quote about the unintelligibility of QM is famous.
It is true that these interpretations were arrived at from empirical observation by scientists using their logical reasoning. But that is not the same as saying that the logic that resulted fits into one logical framework, only that some (but not all and not necessarily the same rules throughout all interpretations) rules are shared among the different interpretations. They've adopted different sets of basic assertions (the axiomas) and thus arrived at different logical frameworks. If you drop the law of excluded middle from propositional logic you essentialy allow many-valued logic and you've set your first step on your way to quantum logic.
The key point is that it is possible to formulate different (i.e. unreconcilable) logical frameworks to describe reality and that we somehow have to choose the logical framework that fits reality best. It certainly is not the case that every logic we come up with is applicable to reality. It is undeniable that it is possible to construct different (as in 'incompatible') logical frameworks by choosing different axiomas and it is undeniable that there is an ongoing search to find out which logical framework(s) can be applied to (which part of) nature. Also it should be noted that there isn't necessarily a correlate in reality for everything we put in the mathematical models with which we try to describe reality. Quantum mecahnics is described by quantum logic and Hilbert spaces but no one knows the correlate in reality of a Hilbert space, which has an infinte number of dimensions.
Purple Rabbit Wrote: " A clock is an abstraction of time by humans, not time itsel. Presenting it in a periodic cycle is a handy way to sync our practical daily use time to the rotation of the earth, but it is not applicable to time as a dimension of our universe. That is, as we currently understand it, a continuous timeline"
RK wrote: "What do you exactly mean? Knowing what time is is still arguable.
I just wanted to make an easy example."
I mean that modular arithmetic in a restricted sense is applicable to our reality, but it is not an accurate description of all aspects of time in our reality.
PR wrote: "Axioms are unproven assumptions of mathematics."
RK wrote: "Such axioms are self-evident."
Self-evident is nothing but a word saying "I can't see how this could not be true". But reality has learned us a valuable lesson with the refutation of Euclidean Geometry by General Relativity. What seems self-evident does not have to be true in reality. In Euclidean Geometry the sum of all angles of a triangle equals 180 degrees. In GR this can be less than 180 degrees, because GR describes spacetime as curved by matter. In EG a straight line is the shortest distance between to points, this isn't so in GR.
PR Wrote: "Some were later shown not to hold in our universe. As a result Einstein and Minkovski replaced it with a new geometry."
RK wrote: "Give me an example. What do you mean by "not to be held in our universe"? Because the new geometry is developed from the old one.
Do you mean like, straight lines in Euclidean-geometry and geodesics in modern geometry? "
See the example above. I mean that the geodesics of EG are incompatoble with the geodsics of curved space as in GR.
PR wrote: "All I say is that QM can be described with a logic that's different from the normal stuff. That is quantum logic."
RK wrote: "All its math is evolved from the simple logical math, its math has its roots in the self-evident axioms. "
No. Quantum logic as opposed to propositional logic is a multi-valued logic in which there are more than two truth values. Another way of saying this is that in quantum logic the law of the excluded middle is dropped. (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-manyvalued/)
PR Wrote: "I assume you know that quantum physics currently hasn't been unified with general relativity? If not google it. The underlying math is different."
RK wrote: "What has this to do with logic? I know they are two different theories, and the major problem is that gravity is not unified the three other fundamental forces.
They are different mathematical models but uses the same underlying logical rules of math."
No, they are mathematical descriptions of reality that use different axiomas at their basis that make their mathematical formulation unreconcilable. If you think otherwise then show me how you reconcile many-valued logic, more specifically quantum logic, with traditional propositional logic.
(June 11, 2010 at 5:11 pm)Ramsin.Kh Wrote: Here is an attempt, let's say that the set (N) is the collection of all the universes, whether logical or illogical.
N = {X, Y, Z, ...}
The elements (X), (Y) and (Z) are just existent real universes.
Notice that (N) does not necessarily exist in reality, in this case, it's an abstracted mental idea.
The elements of (N) do exist only if each of them contain something.
Every element/universe can be considered as smaller set, a subset, so:
X = {...}
Y = {...}
For a universe to exist, it should contain something. If a universe contains nothing then it's as good to say that such a universe does not exist, since even space and time have quantities and are something, therefore:
If: X = {A, B, ...} => This universe does exist.
If: Y = ∅ = {} => This universe does not exist and should be removed from (N) since (N) is a set for the existent universes.
For (X), its existence is an axiom, therefore it is logical and has no empty set of axioms.
For (Y), we know that it does not exist, it has an empty set of axioms, therefore no logical conclusions can be made of that.
Therefore: N ≠ ∅
All existent universes should at least share one axiom and that is the existence axiom:
(Axioms of Universe A) ∩ (Axioms of Universe B) = [The axiom of existence]
It's circular. You've derived existence from defining it.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
June 12, 2010 at 2:38 am (This post was last modified: June 12, 2010 at 2:57 am by The_Flying_Skeptic.)
(June 12, 2010 at 2:27 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: TFS wrote:" [deleted all the useless stuff and added bold emphasis] Whatever logic that was derived, based on, or refers to quantum mechanics was derived from 'normal logic' and that is what Ramsin said in slightly different words."
The condescending tone in your bracketed reply is no invitation to substantiate any points. Please let me know if you want any discussion at all or are solely interested in your own conclusion. It saves typing.
omg! people say so much worst and you're bugging me about suggesting that he get to the point. anyway, if you read further you'll see that i actually agree with him in the end that there is no way to prove an illogical universe doesn't exist but there is way to prove that an illogical universe is even possible since we can only fathom universes where logic is possible... as far as we know.
(June 12, 2010 at 2:27 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Quantum mechanics is not derived from logic, but from empirical results such as the double slit experiments in nature, results that have no simple interpretation in terms of traditional logic. Currently there are more than 5 interpretations of QM to choose from. These interpretations each defy aspects of traditional logic. In some there is particle-wave duality (please appreciater what this means, i.e. that the very nature of a thing in our universe is twofold at the same time), in some there is time travel of information back in time and so on. Each of these interpretations constitutes a different logic. Nobody has been able to reconcile these interpretations or to weed out a winning QM interpretation. This is by no means a simple problem to solve. Einstein found it troublesome. The Feynman quote about the unintelligibility of QM is famous.
It is true that these interpretations were arrived at from empirical observation by scientists using their logical reasoning. But that is not the same as saying that the logic that resulted fits into one logical framework, only that some (but not all and not necessarily the same rules throughout all interpretations) rules are shared among the different interpretations. They've adopted different sets of basic assertions (the axiomas) and thus arrived at different logical frameworks. If you drop the law of excluded middle from propositional logic you essentialy allow many-valued logic and you've set your first step on your way to quantum logic.
dude... this has been covered. Ramsin never said that quantum physics was derived purely from logics. Someone was suggesting that quantum logics was completely independent of logics and Ramsin responded that quantum logics is derived by the use of normal logics (or just 'logics'). It's like someone saying 'Calculus' is a different type of math Independent of algebra. You wouldn't say that Calculus is entirely independent of algebra would you?
Quote:Self-evident is nothing but a word saying "I can't see how this could not be true". But reality has learned us a valuable lesson with the refutation of Euclidean Geometry by General Relativity. What seems self-evident does not have to be true in reality. In Euclidean Geometry the sum of all angles of a triangle equals 180 degrees. In GR this can be less than 180 degrees, because GR describes spacetime as curved by matter. In EG a straight line is the shortest distance between to points, this isn't so in GR.
the only way this example would be relevant to the discussion was if it was an example of a truth coming out of an illogical argument which it's not (alright that's confusing since the conclusion of an illogical argument may still be 'true' but maybe the next sentences will have more meaning). this has more to do with the best way to describe our reality 'our physics' (you're saying 'general relativity explains our reality better than euclidean geometry or Newtonian physics) than whether or not you should be able to form logical argument in all universes.
June 12, 2010 at 2:48 am (This post was last modified: June 12, 2010 at 3:11 am by Purple Rabbit.)
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."
(June 12, 2010 at 2:38 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote:
(June 12, 2010 at 2:27 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: TFS wrote:" [deleted all the useless stuff and added bold emphasis] Whatever logic that was derived, based on, or refers to quantum mechanics was derived from 'normal logic' and that is what Ramsin said in slightly different words."
The condescending tone in your bracketed reply is no invitation to substantiate any points. Please let me know if you want any discussion at all or are solely interested in your own conclusion. It saves typing.
omg! people say so much worst and you're bugging me about suggesting that he get to the point. anyway, if you read further you'll see that i actually agree with him in the end that there is no way to prove an illogical universe doesn't exist but there is way to prove that an illogical universe is even possible since we can only fathom universes where logic is possible... as far as we know.
(June 12, 2010 at 2:27 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Quantum mechanics is not derived from logic, but from empirical results such as the double slit experiments in nature, results that have no simple interpretation in terms of traditional logic. Currently there are more than 5 interpretations of QM to choose from. These interpretations each defy aspects of traditional logic. In some there is particle-wave duality (please appreciater what this means, i.e. that the very nature of a thing in our universe is twofold at the same time), in some there is time travel of information back in time and so on. Each of these interpretations constitutes a different logic. Nobody has been able to reconcile these interpretations or to weed out a winning QM interpretation. This is by no means a simple problem to solve. Einstein found it troublesome. The Feynman quote about the unintelligibility of QM is famous.
It is true that these interpretations were arrived at from empirical observation by scientists using their logical reasoning. But that is not the same as saying that the logic that resulted fits into one logical framework, only that some (but not all and not necessarily the same rules throughout all interpretations) rules are shared among the different interpretations. They've adopted different sets of basic assertions (the axiomas) and thus arrived at different logical frameworks. If you drop the law of excluded middle from propositional logic you essentialy allow many-valued logic and you've set your first step on your way to quantum logic.
dude... this has been covered. Ramsin never said that quantum physics was derived purely from logics. Someone was suggesting that quantum logics was completely independent of logics and Ramsin responded that quantum logics is derived by the use of normal logics (or just 'logics'). It's like someone saying 'Calculus' is a different type of math Independent of algebra. You wouldn't say that Calculus is entirely independent of algebra would you?
I hope you notice I'm adressing you and Ramsin seperately. As if you are two seperate persons. I'm not suggesting in any way that you should share opinion with Ramsin. But the bracketed stuff by you seems targeted at me, that's what I responded to.
I've defined what I mean by different logic in my answer above. I suggest you read it. Some axiomas might be shared but there really in no absolute here. Quantum logic and traditional propositional logic don't share all axiomas. Quantum logic is three valued, propositional logic is boolean.
(June 12, 2010 at 2:38 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: the only way this example would be relevant to the discussion was if it was an example of a truth coming out of an illogical argument which it's not (alright that's confusing since the conclusion of an illogical argument may still be 'true' but maybe the next sentences will have more meaning). this has more to do with the best way to describe our reality 'our physics' (you're saying 'general relativity explains our reality better than euclidean geometry or Newtonian physics) than whether or not you should be able to form logical argument in all universes.
That's bull. I (and nobody here that I'm aware of) haven't asserted that truth ever arises from illogic, only that it is possible to construct incompatible different kinds of logic. And furthermore that it is a question which logic applies to our reality.
But my opinion in this is a rather conservative one. Hilary Putnam, not just some some dude with an opinion, even goes beyond that position and argues that logic is defined by what holds in reality not the other way 'round. In fact he argues for an empirical logic.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
June 12, 2010 at 3:12 am (This post was last modified: June 12, 2010 at 3:32 am by The_Flying_Skeptic.)
(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.
(June 12, 2010 at 2:38 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: the only way this example would be relevant to the discussion was if it was an example of a truth coming out of an illogical argument which it's not (alright that's confusing since the conclusion of an illogical argument may still be 'true' but maybe the next sentences will have more meaning). this has more to do with the best way to describe our reality 'our physics' (you're saying 'general relativity explains our reality better than euclidean geometry or Newtonian physics) than whether or not you should be able to form logical argument in all universes.
Quote:That's bull. I (and nobody here that I'm aware of) haven't asserted that truth ever arises from illogic, only that it is possible to construct incompatible different kinds of logic. And furthermore that it is a question which logic applies to our reality.
But my opinion in this is a rather conservative one. Hilary Putnam, not just some some dude with an opinion, even goes beyond that position and argues that logic is defined by what holds in reality not the other way 'round. In fact he argues for an empirical logic.
[/quote]
. a truth technically can be concluded from an illogical argument (where the premises are contradictory but the conclusion is true. that happens right?). 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. I'm sure that Hilary Putnam has not thought to argue about logics in terms of many universes. 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.
