Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:40 pm

Skip wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:36 pm So, you can't see any difference between logic as exercised by reasoning entities and the formulaic representations of logical deduction.
Is there anything to discuss?

Since deduction does not permit for any epistemic uncertainty, I can say with great level of certainty that nobody has ever logically deduced anything in this universe.

If your account of reasoning is "logical deduction" you are accounting wrong about your own thinking.

Logical deduction is the progression of one assertion to another, as such logical deduction (the breakdown of assertions) is a universal function of not just human consciousness but the universe as conscious.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:55 pm Logical deduction is the progression of one assertion to another, as such logical deduction (the breakdown of assertions) is a universal function of not just human consciousness but the universe as conscious.

I have no idea what deduction is, but If the conclusion is uncertain it's not deduction.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:58 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:55 pm Logical deduction is the progression of one assertion to another, as such logical deduction (the breakdown of assertions) is a universal function of not just human consciousness but the universe as conscious.

I have no idea what deduction is, but If the conclusion is uncertain it's not deduction.

You are deducing deduction by defining it by what it is not. Yet paradoxically you are not giving clear definition as to what deduction is thus leaving it as uncertain.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:11 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 10:04 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:49 am Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

I'm sticking with - computers are programmable - LOGIC is fundamental and unchangeable.

And what is fundamental in logic?

Well, fundamentally that is the big question isn't it. Ultimately and fundamentally, logic must yield a binary conclusion, hence the logic that results in such a binary conclusion cannot be changed (programmed) ONLY the original premise can be changed, to affect the binary conclusion.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:16 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:11 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 10:04 am

I'm sticking with - computers are programmable - LOGIC is fundamental and unchangeable.

And what is fundamental in logic?

Well, fundamentally that is the big question isn't it. Ultimately and fundamentally, logic must yield a binary conclusion, hence the logic that results in such a binary conclusion cannot be changed (programmed) ONLY the original premise can be changed, to affect the binary conclusion.

Is it limited to binary? Yes? No? Maybe?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:40 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:16 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:11 pm

And what is fundamental in logic?

Well, fundamentally that is the big question isn't it. Ultimately and fundamentally, logic must yield a binary conclusion, hence the logic that results in such a binary conclusion cannot be changed (programmed) ONLY the original premise can be changed, to affect the binary conclusion.

Is it limited to binary? Yes? No? Maybe?

In our perceivable reality where we use logic, binary means Yay or Nay...

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:43 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:40 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:16 am

Well, fundamentally that is the big question isn't it. Ultimately and fundamentally, logic must yield a binary conclusion, hence the logic that results in such a binary conclusion cannot be changed (programmed) ONLY the original premise can be changed, to affect the binary conclusion.

Is it limited to binary? Yes? No? Maybe?

In our perceivable reality where we use logic, binary means Yay or Nay...

Yet logic cannot be reduced to a binary state given "maybe" is a third state representing a possible "yes/no" state.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:40 pm If your account of reasoning is "logical deduction" you are accounting wrong about your own thinking.

Very possibly. But I didn't refer to logical deduction; I referred to a formulaic representation of it. The way a diagram represents the working of an engine.

Skip wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 3:14 am Very possibly. But I didn't refer to logical deduction; I referred to a formulaic representation of it. The way a diagram represents the working of an engine.

Now look who's confusing the engine and the diagram.

My point is that the diagram of the engine is wrong. It's just the engine trying to account for its own inner workings and the engine says that it's using deduction.

The engine doesn't actually use deduction. It just produces a diagram which says it does, but the diagram is wrong.

And so any account of deduction as being the "inner workings of your brain" is necessarily and only just a formulaic representation of the inner workings of your brain.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 12:06 am You are deducing deduction by defining it by what it is not. Yet paradoxically you are not giving clear definition as to what deduction is thus leaving it as uncertain.

I am not. I am reporting how other people define deduction and what constraints/limits they place upon that which they think deduction is.

Deduction is defined as NOT being uncertain.

Therefore If I am leaving "deduction" uncertain then it cannot be deduction. Because deduction is NOT uncertain.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:55 am Yet logic cannot be reduced to a binary state given "maybe" is a third state representing a possible "yes/no" state.

But it can be reduced to a number of valid states. How many valid states does your logic-system have?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:23 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:55 am Yet logic cannot be reduced to a binary state given "maybe" is a third state representing a possible "yes/no" state.

But it can be reduced to a number of valid states. How many valid states does your logic-system have?

Are we talking about LOGIC at its core fundamental state, which I insist is binary - the result is either TRUE or FALSE - or are we talking about the LOGIC within an Algorithm which contains many of those binary states (LOGIC conditions) until a final result can be provided - at which point YES I will agree that LOGIC via an algorithm can provide MANY resulting 'states'!?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:36 am Are we talking about LOGIC at its core fundamental state, which I insist is binary - the result is either TRUE or FALSE - or are we talking about the LOGIC within an Algorithm which contains many of those binary states (LOGIC conditions) until a final result can be provided - at which point YES I will agree that LOGIC via an algorithm can provide MANY resulting 'states'!?

Logic at its fundamental state is input and output - a function.

A ⊨ B (read as A entails B) can be trivially re-written in functional notation as f(A) = B

There is no prescription on the cardinality of A or B. Boolean logic outputs true or false. Many-valued logics don't.

There's no prescription on whether A and B must be booleans. The function could be none-to-1, none-to-many, many-to-none, 1-to-none, 1-to-1, 1-to-many, many-to-1, many-to-many, many-to-any, any-to-many and any-to-any.

It's a C* algebra, not a Boolean one.

It's called Linear logic because A -> B progresses linearly with time.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:41 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:36 am Are we talking about LOGIC at its core fundamental state, which I insist is binary - the result is either TRUE or FALSE - or are we talking about the LOGIC within an Algorithm which contains many of those binary states (LOGIC conditions) until a final result can be provided - at which point YES I will agree that LOGIC via an algorithm can provide MANY resulting 'states'!?

Logic at its fundamental state is input and output - a function.

It's what happens between the input and the output that IS the logic.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:41 amA ⊨ B (read as A entails B) can be trivially re-written in functional notation as f(A) = B

There is no prescription on the cardinality of A or B. Boolean logic outputs true or false. Many-valued logics don't.

There's no prescription on whether A and B must be booleans. The function could be none-to-1, none-to-many, many-to-none, 1-to-none, 1-to-1, 1-to-many, many-to-1, many-to-many, many-to-any, any-to-many and any-to-any.

It's a C* algebra, not a Boolean one.

It's called Linear logic because A -> B progresses linearly with time.

The 'A's and the 'B' s are data - it's the function that is the LOGIC.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 10:26 am It's what happens between the input and the output that IS the logic.
....
The 'A's and the 'B' s are data - it's the function that is the LOGIC.

So what happens between the input and the output of select_random(A) -> B ?

Give me the logic of random selection.