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.

Logic is absurd

Post Number:#1  Postby BelieveNothing » March 24th, 2017, 1:33 am

Anything and everything is possible, but nothing can be proven... If a statement can be proven to be true then that statement must be possible. The only way to prove that something is impossible is to establish that logic is absurd. In theory if a statement is true then the alternative (contradictory) statements must be false. It's important to remember that this is just theory. If "anything is possible" is a true statement then it would be possible that "anything is possible" is not true - a discrepancy. If "anything is possible" is not a true statement then how could anything be possible? If it was true that nothing was possible then how could anything be true?

"This statement is false" demonstrates that contradictions can not be validated or refuted with any certainty.

It is absurd to say a positive is proven simply because a negative is proven to be false.

Example "My logic is flawless because this example is self evident"
Example "True is true because false is false"

"if you can't prove that anything is impossible then anything must be possible"

-- Updated March 24th, 2017, 8:10 am to add the following --

For something to be true it must be possible, but just because something is possible doesn't necessarily make it true.
It seems self evident to me that anything is possible. You might find it difficult to prove that anything is possible. On a side note I would find it difficult to prove anything because whatever you believe seems to be based on whatever you previously believed. I'm sure the only way to learn anything new is to challenge your own beliefs into obscurity.
Reality is not all in your mind.
User avatar
BelieveNothing
 
Posts: 103 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 24th, 2013, 6:17 am
Location: 2nd cloud from the right

Logic is absurd



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#2  Postby Steve3007 » March 24th, 2017, 5:11 am

If you're going to make any sense of all this I think it's important to try to be clear about the meanings of the words you're using. One of the most important is "prove/proof/proven". In what sense are you using that word? Are you using it in this sense: "The square root of two has been proved to be irrational" or in this sense: "Experimental proof" or maybe even in this sense: "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". But probably not in this sense: "This whiskey is 70% proof".
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."
Steve3007
 
Posts: 3754 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Location: UK
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#3  Postby Philo_soph » March 24th, 2017, 5:52 am

BelieveNothing wrote
For something to be true it must be possible, but just because something is possible doesn't necessarily make it true.
It seems self evident to me that anything is possible. You might find it difficult to prove that anything is possible. On a side note I would find it difficult to prove anything because whatever you believe seems to be based on whatever you previously believed. I'm sure the only way to learn anything new is to challenge your own beliefs into obscurity.

The argument in the introductory remarks was vague to me. So I try to check out the part cited above here. The meanings of "true" and "possible" in the first sentence are problematic:
True: "The pen is on the table."
Possible: "The pen could be put on the table."

I don't know what a "possible but not necessarily true" statement is used for! Why would anyone want to talk about a possible but untrue proposition? Maybe, you're talking about ethics; a crime, for instance, is possible but it’s not morally right. Or maybe you're talking about a hypothetical statement, which should be verfieid.

The last idea seems to be a version of critical thinking or critical reflexivity.
Philo_soph
 
Posts: 68 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 4th, 2014, 2:52 am

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#4  Postby Steve3007 » March 24th, 2017, 6:42 am

I think that's why we need to be clear about the precise sense in which various words in the OP are being used. That's the trouble with this stupid English language of ours. Too many homonyms. I blame the fact that it was invented on a little island that kept getting invaded. Bloody Normans.
"Even men with steel hearts love to see a dog on the pitch."
Steve3007
 
Posts: 3754 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Location: UK
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#5  Postby BelieveNothing » March 24th, 2017, 11:40 am

My mind is creating more problems for me than any other ideas, I mean problems themselves are only ideas if they only exist in your mind, but as you might have gathered by now there seems to be something wrong with my mind anyway.

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

I like this observation:problem
Philo_soph wrote:BelieveNothing wrote
For something to be true it must be possible, but just because something is possible doesn't necessarily make it true.
It seems self evident to me that anything is possible. You might find it difficult to prove that anything is possible. On a side note I would find it difficult to prove anything because whatever you believe seems to be based on whatever you previously believed. I'm sure the only way to learn anything new is to challenge your own beliefs into obscurity.

The argument in the introductory remarks was vague to me. So I try to check out the part cited above here. The meanings of "true" and "possible" in the first sentence are problematic:
True: "The pen is on the table."
Possible: "The pen could be put on the table."



Once the observation is made that "the pen is on the table" the possibility that "the pen could be put on the table" becomes false unless certain conditions are met - namely the pen must be removed again or someone please hit the reset button :lol: . So clearly the necessity for a true statement to be possible in this situation is conditional.

What I was saying originally though is that if "the pen is on the table" could be true then "the pen is on the table" must be possible which I suppose sounds like overstating the obvious or maybe just a step towards defining relationships between terms? I think I've always had difficulty explaining things in context.
BelieveNothing wrote:... If a statement can be proven to be true then that statement must be possible....

If a statement can be proven to be true then that same statement must also be possible in the same context.

It is possible and probable that it is my logic that is absurd and not logic in general but if I knew that then maybe I would have learned something.

I've tried to assert that only possible things can be true, I mean really, how can impossible things be true? Is that nonsense?

I might have misinterpreted or over interpolated somehow from "impossible thing's can't be true" into "it's impossible for anything to be impossible".

-- Updated March 24th, 2017, 3:49 pm to add the following --

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?
Reality is not all in your mind.
User avatar
BelieveNothing
 
Posts: 103 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 24th, 2013, 6:17 am
Location: 2nd cloud from the right

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#6  Postby LuckyR » March 24th, 2017, 1:16 pm

BelieveNothing wrote:My mind is creating more problems for me than any other ideas, I mean problems themselves are only ideas if they only exist in your mind, but as you might have gathered by now there seems to be something wrong with my mind anyway.

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

I like this observation:problem
Philo_soph wrote:BelieveNothing wrote

(Nested quote removed.)

The argument in the introductory remarks was vague to me. So I try to check out the part cited above here. The meanings of "true" and "possible" in the first sentence are problematic:
True: "The pen is on the table."
Possible: "The pen could be put on the table."



Once the observation is made that "the pen is on the table" the possibility that "the pen could be put on the table" becomes false unless certain conditions are met - namely the pen must be removed again or someone please hit the reset button :lol: . So clearly the necessity for a true statement to be possible in this situation is conditional.

What I was saying originally though is that if "the pen is on the table" could be true then "the pen is on the table" must be possible which I suppose sounds like overstating the obvious or maybe just a step towards defining relationships between terms? I think I've always had difficulty explaining things in context.
BelieveNothing wrote:... If a statement can be proven to be true then that statement must be possible....

If a statement can be proven to be true then that same statement must also be possible in the same context.

It is possible and probable that it is my logic that is absurd and not logic in general but if I knew that then maybe I would have learned something.

I've tried to assert that only possible things can be true, I mean really, how can impossible things be true? Is that nonsense?

I might have misinterpreted or over interpolated somehow from "impossible thing's can't be true" into "it's impossible for anything to be impossible".

-- Updated March 24th, 2017, 3:49 pm to add the following --

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?


What is the difficulty here? You are describing a series of subsets. The entirety of thought includes the Possible and the Impossible, and the Possible is divided into two (among other) subsets: the True and the Not True (slightly different than False). This does not address what makes up the Impossible.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
 
Posts: 2185 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#7  Postby Fooloso4 » March 24th, 2017, 1:25 pm

BelieveNothing:
The only way to prove that something is impossible is to establish that logic is absurd.


I would argue that what is possible and what is logical are two separate and distinct things. To put it in terms of the ancient debate: being and thinking are not the same. We say, for example, that something cannot come from nothing. That this is so is based on the inconceivability of something coming from nothing. This is a truth about what is conceivable, not a truth about existence. Its truth is determined by and limited to what can be said or conceived of. That it is impossible for something to come from nothing means that it is impossible to think it or speak reasonably about it.
Fooloso4
Moderator
 
Posts: 2756 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#8  Postby Philo_soph » March 25th, 2017, 8:23 am

BelieveNothing wrote:
Once the observation is made that "the pen is on the table" the possibility that "the pen could be put on the table" becomes false unless certain conditions are met - namely the pen must be removed again or someone please hit the reset button . So clearly the necessity for a true statement to be possible in this situation is conditional.

What I was saying originally though is that if "the pen is on the table" could be true then "the pen is on the table" must be possible which I suppose sounds like overstating the obvious or maybe just a step towards defining relationships between terms? I think I've always had difficulty explaining things in context.

I believe the relation between "true" and "possible" is deeper than what is seems. First, I think we should distinguish "possible" from "conditions of possibility." These conditions are normally set by expectation (of any sort) and social schemata.

I agree that if something is true it should be possible as well. But conditions of possibility are usually in the background; we know them by default (because of experience). So in the sentence, "the pen is on the table", the condition of Locationality between a pen and a table is taken for granted. As such, "true" somehow depends on "possible". So we first presuppose that "a pen can be put on a table" as a possibility and then we test it to confirm the truth about it.

Impossible:
- One is equal to zero (in mathematical conventions it is impossible).
- You can place a car on the table (in reality the table will break).

These are two impossible propositions: one rational and one real (physical). What I get from these contextualized examples is that logic itself is not a linear and formal system. On the contrary, logic works with reality, myth and convention. Ideal statements, such as "anything possible cannot be impossible", and things like that do not work, in my opinion. Why would we need them anyway? Such statements are highly idealized. Our perception of life is very non-linear, flexible and conditional. So logic is not absurd but a flexible substance for organizing our thoughts.
Philo_soph
 
Posts: 68 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 4th, 2014, 2:52 am

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#9  Postby Eodnhoj » March 29th, 2017, 4:39 pm

The failure of linear logic (my brief argument)


The issue with logic is it's dependence on self-evidence which requires a certain level of subjectivity. This level of subjectivity manifests as all axioms being possibilistic relative to the nature of the observer(s). Because of the possibility nature of all axioms, that manifests through the relativity of the observer, one axiom can have multiple logic chains composed of seperate axioms who in themselves are self evident and simultaneously are subjective in their reflectivity with other axioms.

All logical arguments are composed of interrelated axioms that:

A) exist on their own as primitives that cannot be reduced further.
B) manifest reflections between other axioms and the observer(s) which in turn manifests further definition.
C) unify with other axioms, through a synthesis, cancelling out the prior axioms and creating a new one.

Regardless of the order, these three aspects of "relativity", "reflectivity", and "unity/synthesis" exist in one degree or another through a treatise because these three components enable and manifest definition.

Also because of the inherent subjective nature of axioms a certain level of probabilism is involved as the observer through observation steers the course of how the axioms relate, reflect, unify with other axioms.

It is this subjective nature of axioms, that axioms take on the form of actual "curvature" (α) of logic. It is this actual curvature which exists relative to potential curvature (ω).







It is this relativity between actual and potential axioms that manifests the strict linear-ism required in most logic. The nature of relativity between actual and potential, as far as I understand, requires a linearism when it comes to logic.


ex: α∫ω = α <------> ω


ex: α ------> ω

However all axioms are propogative in proportional to the observer/observation that is inter-joined to them.

ex: α ------- α1 -------- α2 -------- α3 --------> ω

The issue occurs as the axioms are all beginning axioms (logic curvature) for further beginning axioms and relative to multiple observers the logic chain begins to spider web as each beginning angle
has multiple possibilities of extension when a separate observer is involved for the nature of the beginning axiom multiplies in degrees reflective of the number of observers (Φ).

ex: (α→αx)≜Φx
(ω→ωx)≜Φx




ex: α --- ψ(ω,ω1,ω2...∞)





ex: α ------- α1 -------- α2 -------- α3 --------> ω

α1 ------- b ------- b1 ------- b2 --------> ω
α3 ------- c ------- c1 ------- c2 --------> ω

So now where it was just the original beginning axiom, now there are several beginning axioms all with separate linear chains each ending with a number of possible potential axioms.

The failure of linear logic is it's ability to manifest to much definition. The increase in definition reflects a paradoxical decrease in understand the nature of the individual axioms as an increase in further axioms shifts the proportionality in observation to all the other axioms.


+(∂>Aα) ≡ -(Φ∝α)

∂(definition)= ψ*α
A (original)
User avatar
Eodnhoj
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 17 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: March 11th, 2017, 2:14 pm

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#10  Postby Joustos » June 10th, 2017, 11:25 pm

"Anything and everything is possible,..." you wrote. You refute yourself, because, if anything is possible, then your statement is possibly false -- that is, it is not necessarily so. (The logic of modalities is the calculus of Possible, Impossible, Necessary, Non-necessary.) Add "actuality" at the center of the old "Square of Oppositions".
If Logic is absurd (a contradiction in terms), then it cannot exist and, therefore does not exist. But it does exist. Therefore, by the Modus Tollens of the Conditional Syllogism, it is false that logic is absurd.
User avatar
Joustos
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 3 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 10th, 2017, 2:19 pm

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#11  Postby Burning ghost » June 11th, 2017, 3:14 am

Read the book of the month on this forum!

The Myth of Sisyphus - Camus

They'd should hopefully be some lively discussion about this book soon I hope? The pdf is easy to find online and is FREE! He is widely known for his 'absurdism' in philosophy.
AKA badgerjelly
Burning ghost
 
Posts: 1382 (View: All / In topic)

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

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#12  Postby -1- » June 11th, 2017, 5:26 am

Burning ghost wrote:Read the book of the month on this forum!

The Myth of Sisyphus - Camus

They'd should hopefully be some lively discussion about this book soon I hope? The pdf is easy to find online and is FREE! He is widely known for his 'absurdism' in philosophy.

You can't discuss this yet, officially -- there is no forum opened to discuss this.

And it's not "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Camus that we are to discuss, but "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Camus and by some other dude, co-authoring the book. This is completely different.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."
User avatar
-1-
 
Posts: 712 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#13  Postby Burning ghost » June 11th, 2017, 8:58 am

It is by Camus, I have it. The other dude is merely the guy who translated it from French (1955)

I was just trying to point out that if people are interested in the subject of the OP they may find this book worth a read given that it is the Book of the Month for this forum.

It can be found and downloaded on line easily enough and it not very long (about 150 pages if that? My print out doesn't have page numbers)

One of my favourite quotes is from this book:

"Incapable of refining the real, thought pauses to mimic it." - Albert Camus

I will be reading this again soon. Not looked at it for about 3-4 yrs.
AKA badgerjelly
Burning ghost
 
Posts: 1382 (View: All / In topic)

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

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#14  Postby GWayne » June 21st, 2017, 6:50 am

What bothers me about logic is the consequence of the vagueness of terms for deductive validity. Most important concepts in philosophy and the humanities are vague in the way 'tall' is vague, or perhaps even 'a good figure skating performance.' Be the necessary and sufficient conditions ever so precise, you are always confronted with borderline cases because that is the nature of what you are referring to. When does somebody start being tall? When does a figure skating performance cross the imaginary line and because 'good.' And all the interesting discussions are over these borderline cases; theories are adjusted to try to accommodate them. etc. Defining terms with necessary and sufficient conditions, either for all possible worlds or in the natural world, seems like a Google search engine logic: hit or miss, the hits going into the extension and the misses being excluded. But, to take the example of the concept 'poetry translation,' most renditions of a poem from one language into another are neither 'translations' or 'transformations or new poems' pure and simple, but to some extent translations and to some extent transformations - they are mixtures, compound elements. And interpretation or judgment - just as in an Olympic sport like figure skating - cannot be avoided. This means the extension of 'poetry translation' is open. And doesn't that mean that it inferences cannot be made from a proposition using that term, unless we have some kind of relative logic appropriate to things that exist on a continuum: not 'if and only if' but 'to the extent that.'
User avatar
GWayne
New Trial Member
 
Posts: 1 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: June 21st, 2017, 6:31 am

Re: Logic is absurd

Post Number:#15  Postby Paradigmer » June 21st, 2017, 11:52 pm

BelieveNothing wrote:For something to be true it must be possible, but just because something is possible doesn't necessarily make it true.
It seems self evident to me that anything is possible. You might find it difficult to prove that anything is possible. On a side note I would find it difficult to prove anything because whatever you believe seems to be based on whatever you previously believed. I'm sure the only way to learn anything new is to challenge your own beliefs into obscurity.

I agree with you.

The deductions asserted by logic, are only valid or invalid in their premises; it is not necessarily true even if they are validated.

With logical tautology, anything is possible by its self fulfilling prophecy with self-evident. You can never prove anything with the posits of its premise, which at the first place is a belief postulated for proving with the logic construes in its premise.


BelieveNothing wrote:If "anything is possible" is not a true statement then how could anything be possible? If it was true that nothing was possible then how could anything be true?

You might find the link to "Logic and belief systems" is relevant to your above two questions.
Paradigmer
 
Posts: 51 (View: All / In topic)

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

Next

Return to Epistemology and Metaphysics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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