Where do we derive logic from?

JulesKorngold

The concept of logic is a fundamental aspect of human reasoning, and it is widely used to distinguish between valid and invalid arguments. It is not an arbitrary construction by human beings but rather a fundamental aspect of reality. Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning and inference and is concerned with determining whether an argument is valid or not.

Logic is based on the concept of propositions, which are statements that can be either true or false. The principles of logic are used to evaluate the validity of arguments that are made up of propositions.

While the concept of logic can be boiled down to the simple idea of true or false, it is actually much more complex than that. Logic includes a wide range of principles, such as the law of non-contradiction (which states that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time), the law of excluded middle (which states that a proposition must either be true or false), and the principles of deductive and inductive reasoning.

Overall, logic is a complex and fundamental aspect of human reasoning and is based on the principles of reasoning and inference. While it can be boiled down to the concept of true or false, it encompasses a wide range of principles and is essential to evaluating the validity of arguments.

Dee

                                    Where do we derive logic from?

You don't derive logic from anywhere as you think it " logical " to announce online that 1+1 =2 or maybe 3 , do you deny this?

Barnardot

@MineSubCraftStarved well logic is what that Maxx guy and that Nomenclatter guy don’t have so that’s what logic isn’t and what would happen if logic exited so there for logic exists. So you can see that if we don’t have conspiracy theories and ultra dum ideas then every thing would be perfectly logic.

Nomenclature

@MineSubCraftStarved

Logic is the process of applying abstract mathematical concepts to the physical world. It comes in two main forms, which are deductive (provable) and inductive (probabilistic). 

jack

MineSubCraftStarved said:

What even is logic?

Hello M:

Logic derives from the reasonable person doctrine..  Ergo, it's logical to think or do, what a reasonable person would think or do in the same circumstance, plus 1.  To do otherwise wouldn't be logical at all.

excon

Nomenclature

@jack

Ergo, it's logical to think or do, what a reasonable person would think or do in the same circumstance

Ergo, you are not logical, since your unreasonable behaviour has already earned you jail time. 

MineSubCraftStarved

@jack

Ergo, it's logical to think or do, what a reasonable person would think or do in the same circumstance, plus 1.

Who defines the level of reasonability a person has?

MineSubCraftStarved

@JulesKorngold

It is not an arbitrary construction by human beings but rather a fundamental aspect of reality.

You stated that logic can be boiled down to whether or not something is true or false. But what gives credence to such an assertion in reality?

Due to the uncertainty principle, no movement of particles, and thus objects, can be accurately predicted. Now take Schrodinger's cat, in this analogy, a cat is in a box, and there is a flask of poison with it, there is a 50-50 random probability that the cat will either be dead or alive. Thus, if we don't open the box, the cat is either dead or alive. We can take this to the movement of objects as it is ultimately based on probability. At each instance in time, every particle in the universe undergoes this analogy, it is either moving to one position, or to another different position, and thus it is either here, or there, being two contradictory values at the same time. Which goes against logic as you stated.

How can we say that reality underlies an axiom of non-contradiction if an object can be in two positions at the same time?

Nomenclature

@MineSubCraftStarved

You stated that logic can be boiled down to whether or not something is true or false.

Logic and truth are two different things. Something can be logical and false, but not true and false.

jack

MineSubCraftStarved said:

@jack

Who defines the level of reasonability a person has?

Hello M:

There are no gradients of reasonability..  It's like pregnant..  You ARE, or you AREN'T.  Who decides?   Nobody.  You ARE or you AREN'T.

excon

MayCaesar

@MineSubCraftStarved

The fact that some arbitrarily defined entities can never be measured with 100% precision does not imply that true or false statements about them cannot be made. I can say that I will certainly die within the next billion years, which is (I think) a true statement, but I do not know when exactly: could be tomorrow, or in 62 years, or in 124,745 years. What makes this statement true or false is not some subjective human judgement, but the objective reality: 1 billion years from now I will be either alive or dead, and which determines the truthfulness of my statement.

When talking about intrinsically probabilistic entities, you also can make true and false statements. If the cat is either alive or dead with 50% probability, then that is what you should say. The cat does not have to be alive with 100% probability or dead with 100% probability: this is not how the Universe works.

That said, the cat is a bad example that serves as a decent illustration of the general concept; in reality, as a macroscopic object, such a cat likely cannot exist. A much better analogy is a rope: if you shake one of its ends, a series of waves will be sent along the rope. Asking what position an electron occupies is like asking where one of the waves is located: it is "located" everywhere on the rope, it is not a dot object.

jack

Nomenclature said:

@jack

Ergo, you are not logical, since your unreasonable behaviour has already earned you jail time. 

Hello hater:

Is it logical to assume things about people with no evidence whatsoever??  NO, of course not.   Do you know I was in jail?  NO, you don't.  Do you know I'm not a Jew?  NO, you don't..  Is saying sh*t like that about somebody you've never met, reasonable or logical?  NO, it isn't.  

Therefore, in terms of logic and/or reasonableness, you ain't got none..

Bwa ha ha ha ha.

excon

Nomenclature

@jack

Hello hater

Hello intellectually stunted ex-convict.

Is it logical to assume things about people with no evidence whatsoever?

Is it logical to tell at least one lie in every sentence which leaves your lips? 

Do you know I was in jail?  NO, you don't.

You've been bragging about it for the last six years, you absolute fool. You even named yourself "Excon" on the other debate site you infect.

Honestly, you are hands down one of the most intellectually backwards imbeciles I have ever encountered. You tell so many lies that you end up contradicting yourself at least once per paragraph. 

Nomenclature

@jack

in terms of logic and/or reasonableness, you ain't got none..

Haven't got any.

Learn to speak English you retarded twit.

Dee

@Nomenclature

Excon never stopped bragging about his criminal past thinking he was impressing everyone, then he'd start bragging about his military past and his heroics ........the guy is full of wind and piss like a barman's cat 

MineSubCraftStarved

@MayCaesar

The fact that some arbitrarily defined entities can never be measured with 100% precision does not imply that true or false statements about them cannot be made. I can say that I will certainly die within the next billion years, which is (I think) a true statement, but I do not know when exactly: could be tomorrow, or in 62 years, or in 124,745 years. What makes this statement true or false is not some subjective human judgement, but the objective reality: 1 billion years from now I will be either alive or dead, and which determines the truthfulness of my statement.

But that logic only applies in a general scope. The fact that some objects can have two different values for the same property means that they cannot be either or, and thus must violate the law of non-contradiction.
You can argue that logic can only work as a general rule, however it breaks down at certain levels and parameters, and thus is not a completely accurate determinant of reality.

When talking about intrinsically probabilistic entities, you also can make true and false statements. If the cat is either alive or dead with 50% probability, then that is what you should say. The cat does not have to be alive with 100% probability or dead with 100% probability: this is not how the Universe works.

But without opening the box, the an external observer should assume that the cat is both dead and alive. Every instance of plank time we can see this similar scenario, with us, the external observers viewing the movement of electrons, at each instance, the electron can be at different positions in space.

That said, the cat is a bad example that serves as a decent illustration of the general concept; in reality, as a macroscopic object, such a cat likely cannot exist. A much better analogy is a rope: if you shake one of its ends, a series of waves will be sent along the rope. Asking what position an electron occupies is like asking where one of the waves is located: it is "located" everywhere on the rope, it is not a dot object.

If an electron is a particle, and thus can have definite volume, then if an electron is located everywhere on the rope, would that not violate logic? Since after all, the object has multiple positions within space at the same point in time.

MineSubCraftStarved

@jack

Nobody.  You ARE or you AREN'T.

How does one know if they "are" or "aren't"?

MayCaesar

@MineSubCraftStarved

That is a misconception though: an object cannot have two mutually exclusive values of the same property at the same time. No does anywhere in physics such a phenomenon arise.

No, the cat is not both dead and alive. Rather, both possibilities exist and the observer does not know which one is going to materialize. Same goes for an electron's position. In fact, at the scale at which this question arises at all we are not even talking about the positions of particles but only about their wave functions.

A "particle" in quantum mechanics is not the same object that you might think of as a partcle in other contexts. It is not a dot or a well-shaped ball. The analogy with the rope serves to demonstrate just that: a wave is not located anywhere on the rope, but traces its entire length. When we talk about locations of objects, we talk of something that is a superposition of a large number of wave functions that have a certain "center of probability". And even that center does not have to be a point, just like a car does not have to be a point and its individual wheels have individual locations.

jack

MineSubCraftStarved said:

@jack

Nobody.  You ARE or you AREN'T.

How does one know if they "are" or "aren't"?

Hello again, M:

You don't have to KNOW you're reasonable, in order to BE reasonable..

excon

Nomenclature

@jack

Why are you so unfathomably unintelligent? 

Nomenclature

@MineSubCraftStarved

If an electron is a particle, and thus can have definite volume, then if an electron is located everywhere on the rope, would that not violate logic? Since after all, the object has multiple positions within space at the same point in time.

An electron only becomes a particle when its waveform collapses. It works the same way for photons.

MineSubCraftStarved

@MayCaesar

No, the cat is not both dead and alive. Rather, both possibilities exist and the observer does not know which one is going to materialize.

Quantum theory states that until an object is observed, it exists in all possible locations it could reach within that given plank time. Thus, the cat is both dead and alive in the box until you open it.

In fact, at the scale at which this question arises at all we are not even talking about the positions of particles but only about their wave functions.

But wouldn't the uncertainty principle violate the law of non-contradiction regarding waves? After all, how can a wave exist in two contradictory positions at the same time and thus violate the PNC?

The analogy with the rope serves to demonstrate just that: a wave is not located anywhere on the rope, but traces its entire length. When we talk about locations of objects, we talk of something that is a superposition of a large number of wave functions that have a certain "center of probability". And even that center does not have to be a point,

Although a wave's center may always be changing from one instance to another. But if we halt time at an instance, it will have a definite center within it's length. Akin to Zeno's paradox of an arrow(which I'm sure you're aware of). But according to quantum theory, this center should occupy different positions in space from the point of view of the external observer. Thus, the center would not be here, or there, it can never be at a definite space, and thus would violate the law of non-contradiction, and logic.

MineSubCraftStarved

@jack

You don't have to KNOW you're reasonable, in order to BE reasonable..

Then how does one determine reasonability? How can one know if they or someone else is reasonable?

MayCaesar

MineSubCraftStarved said:

Quantum theory states that until an object is observed, it exists in all possible locations it could reach within that given plank time. Thus, the cat is both dead and alive in the box until you open it.

It does not. First, you are referring to an outdated interpretation of uncertainty in quantum mechanics, and second, you are not describing that interpretation accurately. In that interpretation, an unobserved object is a wave (i.e. probability distribution) function, and once it is observed, the function "collapses" into a point which is the object's location. That interpretation is obviously flawed since the "observer" is ill-defined (in the absence of living organisms quantum mechanics suddenly starts working differently?), and a better (and virtually universally accepted nowadays) interpretation is that the "collapse" is a product of interaction of the object with other objects.

Neither of these two interpretations states that an object "exists in all possible locations it could reach...". The cat is not both dead and alive, although it is dead with a certain probability and alive with a certain probability in the Bayes' framework.

MineSubCraftStarved said:

But wouldn't the uncertainty principle violate the law of non-contradiction regarding waves? After all, how can a wave exist in two contradictory positions at the same time and thus violate the PNC?

Not any more than the fact that my house is located in multiple points in space violates the law of non-contradiction regarding locations. The kitchen and the bathroom are not located at the same point, yet the house has a pretty clear location is space - this location simply is not described by a single point.

MineSubCraftStarved said:

Although a wave's center may always be changing from one instance to another. But if we halt time at an instance, it will have a definite center within it's length. Akin to Zeno's paradox of an arrow(which I'm sure you're aware of). But according to quantum theory, this center should occupy different positions in space from the point of view of the external observer. Thus, the center would not be here, or there, it can never be at a definite space, and thus would violate the law of non-contradiction, and logic.

What is a wave's center? A wave can have a pretty complicated distribution, and a superposition of multiple waves is more complicated still. A wave's center is as poorly defined a concept as, say, a mountain's center. Or the letter P's center.

When you sneeze, where is the sneeze's soundwave's center? There is no such thing, yet the sneeze demonstrably exists and does not contradict anything, and is audible.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar
What is a wave's center? A wave can have a pretty complicated distribution, and a superposition of multiple waves is more complicated still. A wave's center is as poorly defined a concept as, say, a mountain's center. Or the letter P's center.
I'm sorry by I have to call B.S.

A letter is not a sound wave, the person who pronounces the letter P creates a form of sound wave, be it square, sawtooth, or oscillating and does so by forming the center of a wave at the voice box...

The only reason you cannot find the center or more accurately said witnes a sources center in writing is that sound waves are plotted in mathematics by a graph and uses curved lines. If we do not describe then show and tell the difference between a ratio and approximation, we become doomed to scale down to find only nothing.  Also, we are instructed and held to not understand a conflict in plotting or navigation created by the use of natural numbers in linear algebra. Time and a compass are comprised of natural numbers and have no zero, just adding a zero is an insult to mathematics and fraudulent way to force everything relative. 

Pi is not a ratio of a circle’s circumference as fact the ratio of 3:1 falls outside all circumference of every circle. A ratio of 4:1 is a ratio of all circle’s circumference, and it is made by use of geometric chord.

John_C_87

We need six points to navigate a course to exact! position in three-dimensional space. To get anywhere in three-dimensional space we need exact location, six points, plus origin.