Logic is absurd

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#16  Postby Burning ghost » June 22nd, 2017, 4:44 am

Over application and extension of mathematical logic into language is not an absurdity it is a stupidity (see OP)

:P
AKA badgerjelly
Burning ghost
 
Posts: 1623 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Logic is absurd



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#17  Postby Wayne92587 » July 16th, 2017, 12:53 pm

The worst kinds of idiot are the kinds of idiot that are convinced they know something.



No! the worst kind of idiot is the one that believe that he or she is God like, All Knowing,
Know everything.

For the Know-it-all, everything that comes to mind is the Truth, a Fact, is possible.

The problem with logic as I see it, is in believing that just because something is logical that it is True, a possibility.

The primary edict of a particular ancient religion was “don’t eat beans” because when you eat beans your become gaseous, Full of Hot Air, God Like, all knowing, a Know-It-All.
Wayne92587
 
Posts: 1396 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#18  Postby Paradigmer » July 16th, 2017, 10:01 pm

Wayne92587 wrote:
The problem with logic as I see it, is in believing that just because something is logical that it is True, a possibility.


This is indeed the major problem with logic.

The validated deductions of logic is only as true as its postulated domain, which is an assumption. Something that is logical, is not necessary true.
Paradigmer
 
Posts: 51 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 22nd, 2016, 12:59 am

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#19  Postby Wayne92587 » July 17th, 2017, 12:46 pm

Anything is possible is not true.
Wayne92587
 
Posts: 1396 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#20  Postby Gulnara » November 3rd, 2017, 9:04 pm

Logic is not absurd.

Example:
Person gets job with 1 hour commute. He attempts to drive there every day, two hours a day instead of changing the apartment for that city. His reason is, he wants to be able to see ocasionally his friends, who lives nearby.

Logic says this: How is it worth to drive far every workday for possibly few years in order to see friends on some infrequent ocasions?
Isn't this better to get a new apartment next to the job, making commute to work very short, and drive long ditance only on occasion when there is a reason to meet up with friends?

Logic wins.
User avatar
Gulnara
 
Posts: 493 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: October 20th, 2011, 7:02 am

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#21  Postby Wayne92587 » November 7th, 2017, 1:20 pm

Your Logic wins example is a Loser
Wayne92587
 
Posts: 1396 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#22  Postby Londoner » November 7th, 2017, 2:16 pm

BelieveNothing wrote:Can anyone refute this?:

It's possible for all things to be possible and it's impossible for all things to be impossible
so
It's not possible for all things to be impossible and it's not impossible for all things to be possible.

Where are the boundaries beyond which things are impossible? And how can those boundaries be pushed or moved so that impossible things become possible?


If something is 'possible', that is to say it may - or may not - be the case. So saying it is 'possible' is not describing the thing, it is describing our state of knowledge about it. 'It is possible that there is life on Mars' means 'I do not know if there is life on Mars or not'.

Consider; if we know the facts, if we know something is the case, then it is not 'possible', it simply is. And if we know something is not the case, then it is not 'possible' either, it simply is-not. i.e. If there is not 'life on Mars' then it is not possible that there is 'life on Mars'. If there is 'life on Mars' then it isn't possible there isn't 'life on Mars'.
Londoner
 
Posts: 1593 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#23  Postby Chili » November 7th, 2017, 4:05 pm

BelieveNothing wrote:Anything and everything is possible,


If everything is a sequence of actualities, then it is reasonable to think that only those things were possible. If those things which happened were truly inevitable, then the word possible doesn't seem appropriate to describe them. The language of possibility is the language of agency. The language of causality doesn't admit room for agency or thus possibility.

Anyhow it's good to remember:
"Everything which is not forbidden is compulsory, and everything which is not compulsory is forbidden."
Chili
 
Posts: 305 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#24  Postby Consul » November 7th, 2017, 4:43 pm

Londoner wrote:If something is 'possible', that is to say it may - or may not - be the case. So saying it is 'possible' is not describing the thing, it is describing our state of knowledge about it. 'It is possible that there is life on Mars' means 'I do not know if there is life on Mars or not'.

Consider; if we know the facts, if we know something is the case, then it is not 'possible', it simply is. And if we know something is not the case, then it is not 'possible' either, it simply is-not. i.e. If there is not 'life on Mars' then it is not possible that there is 'life on Mars'. If there is 'life on Mars' then it isn't possible there isn't 'life on Mars'.


What you describe here is the concept of epistemic possibility, but there are also non-knowledge-relative concepts of metaphysical/ontological and nomological possibility. See: Varieties of Modality!

By the way, if (we know that) p, then it is possible that p—since actuality implies possibility (but nonactuality doesn't imply impossibility!).

"We say that a proposition p is epistemically possible relative to what is known in an epistemic situation S just in case p is consistent with what is known in (or 'possible in view of what is known in') S."

(Dietz, Richard. "Epistemic Modals and Correct Disagreement." In Relative Truth, edited by Manuel Garcia-Carpintero and Max Kölbel, 239-264. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 240)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
 
Posts: 776 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#25  Postby Kathyd » November 7th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Chili wrote:If everything is a sequence of actualities, then it is reasonable to think that only those things were possible. If those things which happened were truly inevitable, then the word possible doesn't seem appropriate to describe them. The language of possibility is the language of agency. The language of causality doesn't admit room for agency or thus possibility.

Anyhow it's good to remember:
"Everything which is not forbidden is compulsory, and everything which is not compulsory is forbidden."


So you do not believe in free will?
User avatar
Kathyd
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 18 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 21st, 2017, 3:43 pm

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#26  Postby Chili » November 7th, 2017, 10:54 pm

Kathyd wrote:
Chili wrote:If everything is a sequence of actualities, then it is reasonable to think that only those things were possible. If those things which happened were truly inevitable, then the word possible doesn't seem appropriate to describe them. The language of possibility is the language of agency. The language of causality doesn't admit room for agency or thus possibility.

Anyhow it's good to remember:
"Everything which is not forbidden is compulsory, and everything which is not compulsory is forbidden."


So you do not believe in free will?


Mystics and physicists alike will say the individual self is an illusion, that all is one, and that individual choice is a gesture of the cosmos.
Chili
 
Posts: 305 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#27  Postby Londoner » November 8th, 2017, 4:47 am

Consul wrote:
Londoner wrote:If something is 'possible', that is to say it may - or may not - be the case. So saying it is 'possible' is not describing the thing, it is describing our state of knowledge about it. 'It is possible that there is life on Mars' means 'I do not know if there is life on Mars or not'.

Consider; if we know the facts, if we know something is the case, then it is not 'possible', it simply is. And if we know something is not the case, then it is not 'possible' either, it simply is-not. i.e. If there is not 'life on Mars' then it is not possible that there is 'life on Mars'. If there is 'life on Mars' then it isn't possible there isn't 'life on Mars'.


What you describe here is the concept of epistemic possibility, but there are also non-knowledge-relative concepts of metaphysical/ontological and nomological possibility. See: Varieties of Modality!


Possibly! But then the paradox I was answering refers several times to to 'things'. Of course, if 'possible' was meant in some other way BelieveNothing ought to make that clear - but if they did, I do not think we would see any paradox.

By the way, if (we know that) p, then it is possible that p—since actuality implies possibility (but nonactuality doesn't imply impossibility!).


I would disagree, again because the paradox does not refer to a term in logic, like 'p', but an object; a 'thing'. I do not think the word 'possibility' works that way if we are talking about objects, rather than propositions. To say something in the physical world is 'possible' could be to assert a fact about the physical world. The proposition 'the moon is made of cheese' must be capable of being negated to be a proposition in logic, but to say 'it is possible the moon is made of cheese' is simply false.

Or alternatively, as I suggest, it might be an assertion about the speaker; 'I have no idea what the moon is made of'. In which case, you are not asserting anything about the moon. Then there is nothing in BelieveNothing's paradox to refute, because he has not asserted anything.
Londoner
 
Posts: 1593 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Previous

Return to Epistemology and Metaphysics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST