Philosophy Now Forum

i have been thinking about logic and paradox and recursion
i have a theory of logic
its a bit meta, it goes like this:

the function of logic is to define (to make finite)
in such a way 'that no loop or infinite chain of references can occur'
applied within its own definition, logic can even define itself

i have invented a thought experiment which i hope demonstrates this:

the unknown is a part of reality
if the 'unknown' is a sovereign part of reality (a principle)
then we can never know all of reality
logically then, anything can exist. including magic.
thus ending logic

or

the 'unknown' is a part of reality at this point in time
but in the future we might know all of reality, the 'unknown' will end.
in this way, reality changes over time
reality has become relative, contingent
i could wake up tomorrow with magical powers
thus ending logic

we can collapse this paradox
if we say that 'principle' and 'reality' are separate
when reality no longer conforms to truth (principle)
we legitimise solipsism
thus ending logic

the point is this,
logic defines, it collapses.
here is another example:

there is a Buddhist axiom that resonates with me:
'change is the only constant'

lets apply logic to it
if change is the only constant, the validity
of the axiom must change over time.
the statement is no longer legitimate

logic collapses the axiom
thats what logic does. it collapses, defines, sets limits to.
logic does not create thought, it merely defines it.
in this way, logic is unidirectional, like time

i believe there is no logical argument which logical thought can not collapse
(including this one)


conclusion:

logic does not collapse only insane thought, it collapses all thought.

logic is not the same as validity or truth (logic can only 'validate' indirectly, by collapsing an idea)

logical thought is capable of collapsing oppressive ideas, and so creating freedom
illogical thought can create tyranny

but

human thought must represent a negotiation between logic and insanity
of course, to 'define' is an essential function of thought.
(we can not 'know' without the principle of the finite)
but we must occasionally switch logic off, to avoid systemic collapse

the unknown is a part of reality
if the 'unknown' is a sovereign part of reality (a principle)
then we can never know all of reality
logically then, anything can exist. including magic.
thus ending logic

This reminds me of an argument I was having with someone here who was a proponent of modal logic, in which the claim is made that if something is possible, then it exists in some 'possible world.'

It does not follow that if something is possible, then it must therefore be realized, even if there are a zillion possible worlds.

Similarly, it does not follow that because there may always be unknowns, it follows that 'anything can exist.' This is a complete non sequitur.

im not directly saying if something is possible it must be realized

my point was, in logic, if the 'unknown' exists forever (as an unchanging principle of reality), then logically we can never know everything which exists
it follows that we cannot 'remove' any possibility from an unknown reality (since its unknown)
in this way, in 'unknown' reality, all possibilities (including magic) can exist (so long as they remain unknown)

The equations and examples does not take account for:

- simple misunderstandings
- fraud
- illusions
- superstition
- demagoguery

im not sure how you mean

marsmicro wrote:im not directly saying if something is possible it must be realized

my point was, in logic, if the 'unknown' exists forever (as an unchanging principle of reality), then logically we can never know everything which exists
it follows that we cannot 'remove' any possibility from an unknown reality (since its unknown)
in this way, in 'unknown' reality, all possibilities (including magic) can exist (so long as they remain unknown)

Logically, we should neither know the unknown existing.

Logically, we should neither know the unknown existing.[/quote]

im not sure in what way you mean, are you saying the unknown doesn't exist? (a kind of solipsism)

You have written, the unknown is a part of reality. You did. So how could you ever know that the unknown itself exists?

David Handeye wrote:You have written, the unknown is a part of reality. You did. So how could you ever know that the unknown itself exists?

when i wrote, the unknown is a part of reality, i was talking about the unknown as a principle.
as in, i know there are things i don't know.
(i wasn't talking about specifics, or an unknown object)

we cannot logically say that 'only the known exists'
in principle, the unknown can exist

marsmicro wrote:we cannot logically say that 'only the known exists'
in principle, the unknown can exist

Simply said, if it wasn't for the unknown (unknowable), there wouldn't be a known (knowable). Knowing and not knowing are dualities from which Life is derived. Cast duality aside (only accomplished by resistance), and accomplish nil... zero... zilch.