At a certain point it was illogical for something to be both a particle and a wave. Then it wasn't. Logical conclusions are always based on 'assertions considered to be true and things considered real and defined like X' etc. So if there are problems with any of those truths, things, definitions than what seems logical will not be.ApplicationBot wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2018, 1:58 pm
My question is whether there are more sets of logic where a paradox for example would be a completly rational conclusion or where 2+2=3;
Of course we see those to be wrong but they could as well be correct in their own set of rules making them true. We defined them to be wrong, not show they are wrong.
Here we are with limited knowledge. If we always rule things out because they are illogical, then we will rule out things that are true. And that is because we are not completely correct about reality. Our models, our universalizing the scope of things, our definitions (semantics), our ability to measure, are limited and likely contain mistakes, blind spots, faulty assumptions, exceptions we are not aware of.
I think any truly intelligent mind will not restrict itself to what SEEMS logical, especially if experience or anomalies are making one consider what seems illogical.
I am not sure if this is what you were after. I do think, for example, that poetry almost approaching but not reaching nonsense can contain truths -that would be a different like of attack on the idea that only logical 'things' can be true.
Another might be to come at language from Reddy's critique of the overuse of the conduit metaphor for language. That what language does, for example, might be to convey truth, even if the sentence itself is not factual.