Philosophy Now Forum

The classic laws of logic are flawed.

They define the linguistic realm, not the systems dynamic/complex realm of the universe.

The law of excludes middle is broken proven by Curry-Howard isomorphism.
The law of identity and non-contradiction doesn’t take modal and temporal phenomena into account.

Logic is the foundation upon which mathematics is built because mathematics is deductive
Science is inductive so it relies on evidence not logic and so the laws of logic do not apply

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:21 pm Logic is the foundation upon which mathematics is built because mathematics is deductive
Science is inductive so it relies on evidence not logic and so the laws of logic do not apply

Bayesian inference is probability theory.
It is modal logic. You are still safely in the land of logic.

The theories of Newtonian Physics do not work totally with Einstein's Theory of Relativity and both of these do not work totally within Quantum Physics.
The respective theories are only effective within their specific Framework and System with its defined boundaries.

It is the same with classical logic and its 3 Laws of Logic which were introduced before the theories of relativity and Quantum physics were established.

Thus we cannot claimed these specific and conditional 3 Laws of Classical Logic are flawed just because they cannot be applied in other circumstances.
Must we abandon them just because they don't work in all and certain circumstances?

What is critical is the 3 laws of classical logic are still useful just like Newtonian Physics.
What is needed is we must understand their limitations when we apply such laws and do not insist they are absolute universals.

TimeSeeker wrote:The classic laws of logic are flawed.

They define the linguistic realm, not the systems dynamic/complex realm of the universe. ...

Could they not be considered to define the realm of reason and thought?

The law of excludes middle is broken proven by Curry-Howard isomorphism. ...

How so? As from what little I understand this is about intuitionistic maths and computational logic which already does away with the excluded middle.

The law of identity and non-contradiction doesn’t take modal and temporal phenomena into account.

And yet we can have propositional probability logic and we have modal and temporal logics?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:47 am

TimeSeeker wrote:The classic laws of logic are flawed.

They define the linguistic realm, not the systems dynamic/complex realm of the universe. ...

Could they not be considered to define the realm of reason and thought?

The law of excludes middle is broken proven by Curry-Howard isomorphism. ...

How so? As from what little I understand this is about intuitionistic maths and computational logic which already does away with the excluded middle.

The law of identity and non-contradiction doesn’t take modal and temporal phenomena into account.

And yet we can have propositional probability logic and we have modal and temporal logics?

You can model your reasoning in logic - sure.
And you can use modal and temporal logic to turn some (complex) conclusion into an equation that you can tackle systematically, or using a computer.

In fact that is how I conceptualise logic. Lego bricks of different shapes and sizes - that you can use to build simple; or very complex things.

The Curry-Howars isomorphism goes even further in guaranteeing that any software you write is proof that your type (from type theory) is Mathematically and computationally valid.

Whether the thing you've built using the lego bricks corresponds to reality - you still need empiricism for that.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:48 pm The classic laws of logic are flawed.

They define the linguistic realm, not the systems dynamic/complex realm of the universe.

The law of excludes middle is broken proven by Curry-Howard isomorphism.
The law of identity and non-contradiction doesn’t take modal and temporal phenomena into account.

yes... that is what I have been saying.

Where I disagree is that they do not even fully define the linguistic realm as language itself is still subject to time in many different manners.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:57 pm yes... that is what I have been saying.

Where I disagree is that they do not even fully define the linguistic realm as language itself is still subject to time in many different manners.

Programming languages are languages. They differ from spoken languages in that they are formal languages e.g they have 'objective' rules for interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_language

As for encoding temporal (time) phenomena into language check this out: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10258

But computer languages do that already. Algorithms evolve over time.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:05 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:57 pm yes... that is what I have been saying.

Where I disagree is that they do not even fully define the linguistic realm as language itself is still subject to time in many different manners.

Programming languages are languages. They differ from spoken languages in that they are formal languages e.g they have 'objective' rules for interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_language

As for encoding temporal (time) phenomena into language check this out: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10258

But computer languages do that already. Algorithms evolve over time.

These objective rules for interpretation stem from a subjective element and a specific set of foundational axioms that must be taken as self-evident.

The problem is that all rules and interpretion require a certain unity of understanding that effectively observes a specific symmetry in the program or symmetry between real life observers. This symmetry necessitates a repitition of understanding specific constants with understanding being a form of unity through repitition....I may have to explain the above.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:33 pm These objective rules for interpretation stem from a subjective element and a specific set of foundational axioms that must be taken as self-evident.

There is no escaping axiomatic reasoning. Not with this brain.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:33 pm The problem is that all rules and interpretion require a certain unity of understanding

Consensus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:41 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:33 pm These objective rules for interpretation stem from a subjective element and a specific set of foundational axioms that must be taken as self-evident.

There is no escaping axiomatic reasoning. Not with this brain.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:33 pm The problem is that all rules and interpretion require a certain unity of understanding

Consensus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

All axioms stem from the directive qualities of the point, line and circle hence all subjectivity and objectivity are unified through the limit.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:44 pm All axioms stem from the directive qualities of the point, line and circle hence all subjectivity and objectivity are unified through the limit.

Are you talking about convergence ?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:47 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:44 pm All axioms stem from the directive qualities of the point, line and circle hence all subjectivity and objectivity are unified through the limit.

Are you talking about convergence ?

Not only, considering even convergence requires relative phenomena as directive properties unifying to form a new directive.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:48 pm Not only, considering even convergence requires relative phenomena as directive properties unifying to form a new directive.

Well, if you take the arrow of time the system that is the universe is converging. Towards maximum entropy. The heat death of the universe.

At maximum entropy structure no longer exists.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:52 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:48 pm Not only, considering even convergence requires relative phenomena as directive properties unifying to form a new directive.

Well, if you take the arrow of time the system that is the universe is converging. Towards maximum entropy. The heat death of the universe.

At maximum entropy structure no longer exists.

Entropy is merely a means of inversion where a phenomenon is divide into parts and the parts form new parts.

Blackholes for instance observe this inversion where the parts are broken down...then when the black hole "fills up" they are redirected as unified in seperate directions which eventually break apart and form new materials.