Alien Logic or is logic universal?

Alien Logic or is logic universal?

Can you conceive of beings whose thinking processes and logic are different than human?

Thinking processes yes, logic no. Logic is not a property of humans or other beings, it's a property of the universe.

We already have man-made computers that think {organize and calculate data} differently than the humans who created them do.

They don't think at all.

Classical logic is what most people mean by the simple term logic, but there are well known problems with classical logic and attempts to fix them have generated other logics. A book that might interest you is Susan Haack's Philosophy of Logics. The use of the plural logics in the title reflects the notion that there is more than one logic.

Quantum logic was developed by Birkoff and Von Neumann in an attempt to find a formal system of logic for quantum mechanics. A principal difference was the absence of a distributive law in quantum logic.

Since the development of category theory in mathematics over the last 60 years, a new mathematical approach to logics has developed. That requires quite a bit of technical knowledge of categories, but there is at least one book devoted to the categorical analysis of logic. Robert Goldblatt's book Topoi does an excellent job, but it is not easy going.

Alien Logic or is logic universal?

Can you conceive of beings whose thinking processes and logic are different than human?

Thinking processes yes, logic no. Logic is not a property of humans or other beings, it's a property of the universe.

Logic a property of the universe? How do you know this? How can you say logic is a property of the universe without subjecting the universe to human logic and how do you suppose to prove humans are logical? You assume humans are logical - and to each other there may seem to be what you call logic, but unless you can view this so-called logic external to human existence and experience you can not prove its independent validity or truth. It is conceivable to me that to a more advanced and logical race of beings most of human history is illogical and a good part of human behavior is illogical. And illogical beings such as humans would not know if the universe they live in is in fact logical because they may not know what logic is.

But I will agree in at least the possibility that independently of humans the universe may in fact be logical - porblem is how are you going to prove this?

Logic is basically systematic thinking towards results. There are many types of logic, i.e. classical, rigid, fuzzy, probablistic, dialectical, paraconsistent, intuitional, etc.. However, the critical element is, they must be systematic and purposeful, and ending with a systematic-based result rather than by pure blind chance.

If the term 'logic' conforms to the above definition and description, then, logic is fundamentally universal and applicable even to aliens which are more advance than humans, if they exist.

'Systematic' does not mean strictly in sequential order and following all the explicit logical rules set by specific groups, e.g. classical, computer, scientific, etc. Doing a jig-saw puzzle by placing certain pieces based on a 'hunch' may be systematic when one take into account the piece in relation to the whole (system) of the puzzle into account and with the finality that the puzzle is completed.

I think the logic of the future by human or aliens will be systematic (with an idea of the system on hand) and dealing with more fuzzy, probablistic, seemingly contradicting variables and organizing them toward an optimal result. As such, the processes of future logic may appear chaotic on the surface, but there is inherent system and order underlying the chaos. Such logic will be able to handle the big picture, e.g. weather, global warming and more complex issues that involve complex sets of variables.

Spectrum, basically I agree with what you are saying. Of course there are the elements of should be, could be, and probably is in that viewpoint of logic and logical purpose. Admittedly and for now we may have to accept those limitations. I believe however that to test any hypothesis one should argue an antithesis to it. And in any proposition to test the validity of that proposition we should try to disprove it. If we can not disprove it there is a greater chance that the original proposition is true and valid in a universal sense.

Finally though we are confronted by limits of proof. An old occult saying of a group called 'The Great White Brotherhood of the Himalayas' was "Anything is possible, buy nothing is certain." Is that logical? Only if you read into it and attempt to comprehend the hidden meaning implied - Probably goes in the Alien Logic category.

Logic a property of the universe? How do you know this? How can you say logic is a property of the universe without subjecting the universe to human logic and how do you suppose to prove humans are logical?

How do you propose to prove anything at all?

You assume humans are logical -

No I don't, I said that logic is a property of the universe, not a property of humans.

But I will agree in at least the possibility that independently of humans the universe may in fact be logical - problem is how are you going to prove this?

It doesn't trouble me. Nothing can be proved.

Logic a property of the universe? How do you know this? How can you say logic is a property of the universe without subjecting the universe to human logic and how do you suppose to prove humans are logical?

How do you propose to prove anything at all?

You assume humans are logical -

No I don't, I said that logic is a property of the universe, not a property of humans.

But I will agree in at least the possibility that independently of humans the universe may in fact be logical - problem is how are you going to prove this?

It doesn't trouble me. Nothing can be proved.

1. You might not be able to prove anything, but you can argument for what is most likely by presenting probabilities.

2. When you say logic is a property of the universe, not a property of humans, you assume that what your human intelligence have achieved is logical, otherwise you invalidate your own statement. So in the end you do in fact assume humans are logical

3. True in fact if nothing can be proved why even bother living? How can you prove you yourself is worth anything? Or any others for that matter... With that I hope you can see how ridicules that statement is, coming from someone eating to live.

You live on what you believe is true, not on what you can prove. This is a philosophy forum so you are expected to actually think about such things, before well doing what you just did, which at least I find kind of offensive coming from someone on this forum.

1. You might not be able to prove anything, but you can argument for what is most likely by presenting probabilities.

You can, but then I was being challenged to prove things.

2. When you say logic is a property of the universe, not a property of humans, you assume that what your human intelligence have achieved is logical, otherwise you invalidate your own statement. So in the end you do in fact assume humans are logical.

Your argument here is illogical. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.

3. True in fact if nothing can be proved why even bother living?

Well I quite enjoy living, don't you? The fact that nothing can be proved doesn't take away any of that enjoyment for me, I can't really see the connection. Everybody acts like things can be proved anyway, even though they can't.

How can you prove you yourself is worth anything? Or any others for that matter... With that I hope you can see how ridicules that statement is, coming from someone eating to live.

No, again your statement is illogical.

You live on what you believe is true, not on what you can prove. This is a philosophy forum so you are expected to actually think about such things, before well doing what you just did, which at least I find kind of offensive coming from someone on this forum.

Sorry, I don't know what you are getting at here. Do you think I should pretend that things can be proved when they can't, just so you don't feel (inexplicably) offended?

Simply, saying something is illogical, does not make it so. Please do state as to why it is illogical, and if you can't even comprehend the logic behind, I'm going to argument that you are in the wrong since you simply seem to be unable to gasp a difficult thought.

1. placing probabilities is the basics of proving stuff, on one hand you can't prove anything. But mainly people don't want to invalidate the word prove, so they say that if something is probable enough it's proved to them until something else happen. By proved you don't consider the possibility of it being every time you use it, i.e. you don't think that reaching with you hand for something is wrong when you try to get something with them.

2. maybe you should simply try to understand it, rather than childishly exclaiming it to be wrong. In short please do tell me what you thought I wrote and I'll try to repeat it in a more accurate sense. (to what I actually believe)

Attempt to state it again (in a less complicated fashion). Since to do anything in this world you use human logic, it's impossible to conclude anything without acknowledging it. Even concluding it is wrong is not possible without admitting it is there.

3.+4. you split my statement, trying to take it out of context? What exactly is it you were even hoping yo achieve with that? Confuse yourself?

Attempt to dumb it down. If you say nothing can be proved at all, you decide to say that you can't even prove your own feelings as well. Since you can't prove anything. A creature eating to live is already assuming and living on the basis that there is something worth it. You yourself stating it feels pleasant. Why does it feel pleasant? Well if it didn't you would not live would you (since there would not be a reason to)? that already places evidence as to why it feels pleasant to live, in other words it's because we do live that it does (as well as the fact we do want to live. This is why we live, if not for it we would not live and simply not be here to wonder about it).

5. If you ignore everything I say it is obvious you would not get my conclusion, why did you even respond to that bit? (I mean what in the 9 hells would you even hope to achieve with it?)

btw many of my questions were rhetorical questions. Please do realize that it was not a question meant for you to answer but simply a statement of an argument.

BTW, I won't further respond to you, for a few reasons. i.e. I'm not able to tell whether you are actually just trying to troll, if you don't actually want a discussion at all (but just want others to listen to you), or if you are just trying to be annoying. only exception to this would be if you actually began using arguments for your points rather than making baseless claims (in other words if you truly disbelieve what I say and it's me who is in the wrong, then tell me why I would be. I'm not some stupid idiot who would go and believe what you state without bringing any prove when it goes against everything I believe in. You are likely the same or not?)

Logic a property of the universe? How do you know this? How can you say logic is a property of the universe without subjecting the universe to human logic and how do you suppose to prove humans are logical?

How do you propose to prove anything at all?

You assume humans are logical -

No I don't, I said that logic is a property of the universe, not a property of humans.

But I will agree in at least the possibility that independently of humans the universe may in fact be logical - problem is how are you going to prove this?

It doesn't trouble me. Nothing can be proved.

You make some good points:

Such as: " How do you propose to prove anything at all? "
We would have to get into a definition of what is a proof? At least one book could be written on that subject alone
- and there are probably already one or more books on the subject. But what ever is written on the subject we
would still have to make certain assumptions such as where is the proof being used - what world, what time,
what frame of reference and in what reality - And proving reality exists is impossible as it is a relative concept.

And since an independent reality can not be proven it might be as you say - nothing can be proven. Therefore
we can only prove things if we accept a set of definitions and the proof meets the requirements of proof as so
set by the accepted definitions. This too you see would go for attempting to prove a universal reality, an
extremely difficult task when you consider that of the 10 billion or so people now living on say the planet
earth not one exists in exactly the same reality as no two sentient beings can exist in exactly the
same place at the exact same time. Therefore the only thing that gives us any sense of a universal reality is a
bunch of symbols {words and numbers} that humans agree are accurate representations of what is
- But who really knows what actually is and how to prove it!

And to get back to your point that I was debating you said: "Logic a property of the universe"
I'll again say maybe - but until that elusive thing called a proof is shown in that elusive world
of a presumed reality, it remains to be seen.

As far the actual universe is concerned, the only possibility I can think of is Aliens working entirely in intuitionistic logic, and they could be correct (I don't think they would be, but I can't prove it). As far as possibility is concerned, there may be possible worlds where logic is different, just as there may be worlds where ~CH and some where T(CH) and some (Pettigrew worlds) where some sets don't exist. Depending on your belief about possible worls, you may believe that such worlds really exsist, i.e., if your are David Lewis...,

As far the actual universe is concerned, the only possibility I can think of is Aliens working entirely in intuitionistic logic, and they could be correct (I don't think they would be, but I can't prove it). As far as possibility is concerned, there may be possible worlds where logic is different, just as there may be worlds where ~CH and some where T(CH) and some (Pettigrew worlds) where some sets don't exist. Depending on your belief about possible worls, you may believe that such worlds really exsist, i.e., if your are David Lewis...,

Most people who have not studied logic do not realize that classical logic contains some well known anomalies. Particularly disturbing are those connected with material implication ⇒. In classical logic A ⇒ B if either A is false or B is true, regardless of any connection between the two propositions, but we customarily interpret the expression A ⇒ B as "A implies B."

This has the startling result that for any two statements A and B either A ⇒ B or B ⇒ A. In other words choose any two statements at random and one of them implies the other within classical logic. Another way of putting this is that our customary semantics for classical logic is not in accord with the usual meanings of words in English—and hence must be the wrong semantics. This is what has led logicians to consider other formal schemes or other stricter relations besides material implication.

I think it also shakes the notion that there is a single correct logic which much operate throughout the universe. If there is such a thing, we on earth have not yet found it.

You know feelings are very logical, they are simply a human way of skipping the whole process of thinking through all possible actions.

False

Hate, rage. envy .. They do indeed skip logic. They have thus come to rule this small world.

Hjarloprillar

Prismatic - you are right of course, I had not considered implication. Disjunction is another that is often treated differently in formal logic and natural language

Prismatic - you are right of course, I had not considered implication. Disjunction is another that is often treated differently in formal logic and natural language

I don't think the problem with material implication can be fixed. When we use the word implies, we ordinarily mean there is a connection between the two propositions that makes one follow from the other, but in formal logic there is no way to specify that—it must deal with relations between propositions that are purely formal and not specific. Formal logic may be incapable of capturing actual reasoning for just that reason.