What is logical and what is illogical?

Logic, like math, is an artificial concept, an extension of language. When you were talking about internal consistency and the Law of Identity something clicked. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. Entities have specific identities which include all of their properties. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity. For instance:

A circular red rubber ball rolls down a steep grassy hill.

In this case we are referring to entities with specific identities. But, my question is: How does an entity derive its identity? Is it through observation or does it have an inherent identity independent of observation?

The Event: A circular red rubber ball rolls down a steep grassy hill.

The Language: A circular red rubber ball rolls down a steep grassy hill.

Is it possible to cognitively express this event without using any form of language; idiosyncratic, pictorial, spoken, grammatical, or mathematical? Without language circular is no longer circular, red is no longer red, a ball is no longer a ball, rolling is no longer rolling, and a steep grassy hill is no longer a steep grassy hill; then what is it?

If entities derive their identity independent of observation then we cannot know its identity independent of our observation. So, what is logic?

 

An artificial language? I don't follow. I understand how it is a language, but nothing about math is artificial.

 

Would there be 1's, 2's, 3's, and 4's, square root signs, division signs, addition signs, and subtraction signs without man?

 

So your comment is actually that language is artificial, not that math is an artificial language.

I think artificial is a poor choice of words. I would label language as a generally accepted interpretation.

 

Logic is what one wants it to be

 

Logic is just a formal semantic system that assigns truth values to sentences that are correctly formed using its grammar. I should say A logic because there are many, some of which turn out not to work as well as hoped. But a logical system is considered sound if all the sentences derived from a true sentence are also true. And it's considered complete if all true sentences can be derived.

A lot of really interesting implications have become apparent after attempting, since before Descarte, to create the perfect logical language. It would be so robust it would be able to describe anything in the natural world. But its rules would prevent any untruth from being grammatical. So to determine the truth of something one need only attempt to say it. If it's possible to say something in this hypothetical language, then by definition it's true.

People gave up long before they understood why it would never work, of course. Godel taught us about the limits to formal systems, how they break down whenever they attempt to address themselves. But far from knocking inductive or deductive logic down from where it was held in very high esteem his incompleteness theorem simply made it clear when using logic isn't going to produce coherent results.

But this is fairly arcane stuff that has no bearing on what we know, even the people here who claim to be skeptical of logic as we use it. For the kinds of discussions we're having, and for our daily lives, logic works. In this you must agree with me because to disagree is to take exception with the structure of my argument, implicitly agreeing with the rules while disagreeing with my conclusion.

A contradiction. Oops.

See how logic can go down the toilet the minute we allow recursion?

 

That was a logical statement. And yes, just about everything is illogical, or at least appears so.

 

It seems highly illogical to have a discussion about logic.

 

Are you concerned about logic being discussed in the religious forum? Do you want all discussion about logic moved to the science forum or some other forum outside the realm of religious discussion?

 

Please show the readers one of those photons so that we (all the readers) can have the benefit of seeing your proof of claim.

 

The electromagnetic spectrum covers a wide range of wavelengths and photon energies. Light used to "see" an object must have a wavelength about the same size as or smaller than the object. The ALS generates light in the far ultraviolet and soft x-ray regions, which span the wavelengths suited to studying molecules and atoms.

Look at the picture of the electromagnetic spectrum. See if you can find answers to these questions:

What kind of electromagnetic radiation has the shortest wavelength? The longest?
What kind of electromagnetic radiation could be used to "see" molecules? A cold virus?
Why can't you use visible light to "see" molecules?
Some insects, like bees, can see light of shorter wavelengths than humans can see. What kind of radiation do you think a bee sees?


http://www.lbl.gov/MicroWorlds/ALSTool/EMSpec/EMSpec2.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ems1.html


that is classroom stuff for kids


morons of incorporeal crap are too stupid to already know this

 

Neither of your links provide a view of "one of those photons". You fail by your failure to provide the requested showing of a photon.

 

Why does the Right continue to insist on being both irrational and amoral by denying and disparaging Intelligent Design "theory" by prosecuting a war on a seed bearing plant the was declared good on the third day by that Creator?

 

The point being he believes the photon is what it is by belief? And you believe we are here because of intelligent design, based on belief?

 

He has not stated a 'belief' position. I could presume that he has due to his dependence upon those scientific formulas, charts, and other data... but why make such a presumption when in fact I do not know what he believes. The point is that he stated an absolute when he declared the photon to be this and that. That is also why I requested that he provide a viewing or showing of a photon, so that I could ascertain whether or not he was correct in the conclusion he made.

 

He has not stated a 'belief' position. I could presume that he has due to his dependence upon those scientific formulas, charts, and other data... but why make such a presumption when in fact I do not know what he believes. The point is that he stated an absolute when he declared the photon to be this and that. That is also why I requested that he provide a viewing or showing of a photon, so that I could ascertain whether or not he was correct in the conclusion he made.

 

Logic is subjective and wide open to interpretation. To me it is logical to not jump out of a perfectly good airplane with a parachute on my back. To others this is fun. My logic on women who do not wear bras is that it is none of my business and they should be free to express themselves how they like... to others they are those dangerous free spirit types and should be avoided.

What is logical to one will be illogical to another. Tis what makes this forum so fun... most of the time... and other times infuriating.

 

You seem to be saying that logic is perhaps a thing that is left to the individual to ascertain what is 'logical'? Hmmm. Interesting indeed.

 

To me logic is broken down into two basic parts... a more scientific logic and a more opinion based logic... and these are not mutually exclusive. I doubt that anyone here would argue that 2+2=4 but if I were to say that abortion is murder... well then that is a different story and would be hotly contested. Computer programing is extremely logic orientated... but in programing there are many ways to go from point A to point B. For example you could program a simple calculator that only does addition, and your code could only be one line... or you could product the same results with 100 lines of code... how each person arrives at point B from point A can vary greatly depending on the logic they use.

So much of the argument I see on the forums come from the inability to understand the other sides logic. It is always easier to call the other side stupid than to open ourselves to a different perspective. I'm right, you are wrong, you must agree or I will attack you! Perhaps some think that if the other side has some logic in their argument, that they have to agree with it. IMO the opposing side can still make a logical point and I can still respectfully disagree.

Republicans accuse Liberals of being dope smoking kool-aid drinking socialists while the Liberals accuse the Republicans of being capitalist pirates that build their fortune on the backs of the poor. Me I see logic on both sides... the Reps are not as evil as the Dems make them out to be and the Libs are not as irresponsible as the Reps make them out to be.

Logic is subjective in many cases.

 

Arguably, it's less that the logic itself is different, and more that you're operating from a different set of premises. Trying to convince someone of something via logic is pointless unless you can agree on your premises.

 

IMO, Logic is subjective in 100% of the cases.

 

Logic is a tool. As such, the outcomes of employing it will be greatly dependent on the skill of those attempting its use.

Logic is not subjective. Subjectivity is introduced by the beliefs of those who employ it, and what they accept to be true. Logic is no cure for subjective beliefs.

Logic is not a tool for finding or producing truth. It can reveal missteps in reasoning, but logic doesn't tell us if the thing reasoned is true.

An illogical conclusion can still be true, and a logical conclusion can still be false. Logic cannot tell us if the premises used to reach a conclusion are true, and therefore cannot tell us if the conclusion is true. We can only discern whether the conclusion is logical.

This might lead you to think that the value of logic is limited, and I would concur. That doesn't mean logic has no value. It only means we shouldn't try to make of it something more than it is.

 

Logical: Something does not come from nothing.

Logical: From nothing comes nothing.

Illogical: Something comes from nothing

 

Here is more logic at work:

We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence.

But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

 

Logic dictates that if a statement is true any statement which contradicts it is false.

It is the basis of binary code. So however illogical the things you write may be, logic is what allows us all to read them.