Proof A=A

[Tiberius]

Shouldn't this be in the philosophy section???

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Logical does not equal true.


The rules of inference all begin the the premise :"IF A-----" IE; A is always assumed to be true for the sake of argument. An inference can be logically valid and untrue. A logical inference can be considered true only if supported by empirical evidence. [at least in my materialist,non dualist reality)

[Tiberius]

Circular argument. Materialism is a philosophy based on logic, so what you are saying is, "A logical inference can be considered true if supported by empirical evidence, which can be considered true because of the logical inference of materialism".

There are many who would argue that logical does equal true, because the three laws of logic are all supportive statements, and if one of them is taken as false, everything we know about reality that can be deduced by logic comes crumbling down.

[TruthWorthy]

It's amusing, I had a conversation with a Christian the other day. It was about nonbelievers being affiliated with Satan by default. It ended up having either God, or idols. So we reached a point of:

Everything (E) is God (G): E = G
Otherwise:
Everything is an idol (I): E = I

Does this mean E = G = I; or, G = I??

I'm not really familiar with this logical argument; I think it could be inconsistent within subjective interpretation, but objectively, since everything should remain itself then it's really saying that two perspectives are identical, alike, etc. Which is qualitatively incorrect IMO.

[Tiberius]

No, E =/= I because you've already said "E = G, otherwise E = I".

In other words, if E = G is true, then E = G. If not, E = I. If they were the same, it would violate the law of non-contradiction, since what the statement is saying is I = ¬G (I is NOT G), and the law of non-contradiction in this context is ¬(G ^ I) (NOT G AND I).

You can have one or the other, not both.

[Violet]

Circular argument. Materialism is a philosophy based on logic, so what you are saying is, "A logical inference can be considered true if supported by empirical evidence, which can be considered true because of the logical inference of materialism".

There are many who would argue that logical does equal true, because the three laws of logic are all supportive statements, and if one of them is taken as false, everything we know about reality that can be deduced by logic comes crumbling down.

You are right that materialism is based on logic... but we can only assume logic to be correct, as it's very foundation is itself. If logic is 'true'... then everything based off of it is likewise true (in its scenario, EG: If all dogs are mountains, then no dog is not a mountain... not to mean that necessarily it is true that all dogs are mountains (The difference between a 'sound' statement and a 'valid' statement)).

But logic could perhaps be ultimately untrue... we have no way to prove its "truth" except by itself.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

There are many who would argue that logical does equal true,

I'm sure that's true,but not a logician, or at least not the two who taught me Logic 101.

I will qualify to say a logical inference may be accepted as true if and only if the premise is true a priori, but logic alone does not guarantee truth.That is my understanding.However,it's over 30 years since since I did logic,so I admit I may have misremembered. I will gladly accept correction from someone who is qualified to make such a correction by virtue of solid training.

I'm sorry Adrian, I simply do not have the knowledge or the intellect to discuss this in more depth.

[tavarish]

Logical absolutes are conceptual.

a concept cannot exist without a mind.

That mind is God.

Therefore, Jesus died for your sins.


...

Pass the turkey.

[leo-rcc]

Logical absolutes are conceptual.

a concept cannot exist without a mind.

That mind is God.

Therefore, Jesus died for your sins.


...

Pass the turkey.

Good thing I finished my drink before reading this or You'd owe me a new laptop.

[Purple Rabbit]

Shouldn't this be in the philosophy section???

I reckon it is not really a question, is it?

---

A logical inference can be considered true only if supported by empirical evidence. [at least in my materialist,non dualist reality)

Logic is about inferring conclusions from premisses. So logic is a conceptual activitity performed in a formal language. Logic not necessarily applies to physical reality, i.e. there is no valid logical reasoning from the conceptual to reality. So logical inference cannot be verified from empirical evidence (there is no deductional route through reality) without assuming that reality obeys logical rules. But if you assume that reality necessarily obeys logical rules, verifying a logical inference from empirical evidence would be begging the question.