Does time invalidate logic as a means of analyzing reality?

[JCFolsom]

@Anonymous Coward

No. I’m taking a literally cyclic view of circles and you are dodging the question.

I’m not dodging anything. I just don’t see how your example actually applies to the situation.

[Anonymous_Coward]

@JCFolsom

I’m not dodging anything. I just don’t see how your example actually applies to the situation.

Well, I guess you’re on your own then.

Go read about polylogism in the links…that stuff gives me a headache.

[cheimison]

1. Read “Atheism: The Case Against God” for a great primer on metaphysics and epistemology.

2. All arguments imply logic. Logic is not arbitrary rules. It is necessary facts. To argue against logic is self-defeating, to say that other methods of ‘knowledge’ exist or can be imagined outside of knowledge first requires logic for its justification, irrational ways of ‘knowledge’ which disregard logic have, by abandoning non-contradiction, lost the ability to make any sort of ‘true’ or 'false 'statement. Logic can not be ‘justified’ externally, existence and logic are prerequisites of one another. The search for ‘why’ certain things are apodictically true ultimately runs into the fact of existence. To contradict logic is to make statements with no meaning.

3. Nothing can or could be imagined to exist before the Universe or outside of it. One can not talk about ‘before’ the Universe yet one not need to posit infinite age. Age, time and causality are properties of existence within the Universe. As some scientists have observed, without discrete entities and time (within a black hole) it is meaningless to speak of any event. While their ideas about whether this is caused in a black hole are empirical and experimental, their conclusions are absolute.

4. Considering this non-controversial to my satisfaction, I shall retire from this debate.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Another argument against logic. If logic cannot establish even the existence of other beings, it really isn’t a great tool for analyzing reality.

Well, since we’re dealing in arguments against logic, is it both the case and both not the case that that is an argument against logic? No? Otherwise, you are using logic and your entire case collapses into absurdity. Logic consists in the law of noncontradiction, the law of identity and arguably the law of the excluded middle. Not being able to prove another’s existence isn’t a failing of logic. Not being able to explain time adequately isn’t either. All it shows is epistemological limitations. To say that it invalidates logic (logically?) is a non sequitur, and ends up demolishing your own argument.

As for very technical papers, I am rather too lazy, and in any case, I tend towards the position that truth is simple and elegant.

If you’re going to delve into philosophical matters, make sure you’re willing to do the necessary work. As Geoffrey said, the above may be true, but it’s often difficult to unravel the truth from the mess that modern philosophy has left it in.

-Jon

[JCFolsom]

@Jon Irenicus

Well, since we’re dealing in arguments against logic, is it both the case and both not the case that that is an argument against logic? No? Otherwise, you are using logic and your entire case collapses into absurdity. Logic consists in the law of noncontradiction, the law of identity and arguably the law of the excluded middle. Not being able to prove another’s existence isn’t a failing of logic. Not being able to explain time adequately isn’t either. All it shows is epistemological limitations. To say that it invalidates logic (logically?) is a non sequitur, and ends up demolishing your own argument.

Logic can be internally consistent without corresponding to the rest of reality. Thus, logic could be used to show that logic is inapplicable to anything but itself, while still being applicable to itself.

[Jon_Irenicus]

So…

Logic can be internally consistent without corresponding to the rest of reality. Thus, logic could be used to show that logic is inapplicable to anything but itself, while still being applicable to itself.

and both not-

Logic can be internally consistent without corresponding to the rest of reality. Thus, logic could be used to show that logic is inapplicable to anything but itself, while still being applicable to itself.

can simultaneously be true? This is applying logic to reality, and demonstrating what’d happen if you abandoned it, to very ‘real’ arguments.

-Jon

[JCFolsom]

@Jon Irenicus

So…

Logic can be internally consistent without corresponding to the rest of reality. Thus, logic could be used to show that logic is inapplicable to anything but itself, while still being applicable to itself.

and both not-

Logic can be internally consistent without corresponding to the rest of reality. Thus, logic could be used to show that logic is inapplicable to anything but itself, while still being applicable to itself.

can simultaneously be true? This is applying logic to reality, and demonstrating what’d happen if you abandoned it, to very ‘real’ arguments.

I don’t get it.

[Jon_Irenicus]

I’m demonstrating to you the practical consequence of an argument calling for the abandonment of logic. I don’t know what you think logic is, but it consists in the three laws I named earlier. If you say we should abandon it on account of perceived anomalies, it means the argument entailing this cannot even get off the ground without being reduced to meaninglessness. If logic is inapplicable to anything but itself, the law of noncontradiction is voided, meaning things can both be and not be, like what you said above.

-Jon

[JCFolsom]

@Jon Irenicus

I’m demonstrating to you the practical consequence of an argument calling for the abandonment of logic. I don’t know what you think logic is, but it consists in the three laws I named earlier. If you say we should abandon it on account of perceived anomalies, it means the argument entailing this cannot even get off the ground without being reduced to meaninglessness. If logic is inapplicable to anything but itself, the law of noncontradiction is voided, meaning things can both be and not be, like what you said above.

Eddy Eddy Eddy… ahem!

OK, so, but your example would mean that logic is invalid self-referentially. That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is:

1. Time could not go back infinitely, so it must have had a beginning.

2. Time could not begin, so it must go back infinitely.

Thus, logic is inapplicable to time. You have here a dual must but cannot be inherent.

Time is essential, a truly basic component, to our perceptions of the universe. Thus, applying logic to our perceptions of the universe, when we know that a basic part of those perceptions is illogical, is illogical.

Now, I’m not proposing that we actually do away with logic entirely. I’m just saying that maybe it isn’t the all-encompassing super mack l33t p1mp for understanding everything it’s made out to be. No offense to our Vulcan cohort.

[Jon_Irenicus]

That still makes no sense. To say logic does not apply to it, for instance, implies the law of noncontradiction does not apply to it. But it does, otherwise any statement regarding time will reduce to nonsense. There’s no way around it. You’re dealing with an epistemological problem, not a logical one.

-Jon

[JCFolsom]

@Jon Irenicus

To say logic does not apply to it, for instance, implies the law of noncontradiction does not apply to it. But it does, otherwise any statement regarding time will reduce to nonsense.

Not every statement, just those that try to do an in-depth analysis of it logically. Logic does not allow us to classify something as logical because it’s convenient; that’s a hedonistic move. We want to be able to talk about and analyze time, just like we want to for everything else. Humans don’t like not knowing things. We tend to accept the most ridiculous theories rather than accept that we don’t know, or maybe even can’t know, at least not with the lovely, reliable tools of reason. It’s mostly a fear of the dark, I think.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Think through the implications of what you’re saying. To analyze something via logic, one will typically be applying a number of rules, e.g. inferences from true premises will be truth-preserving, either P or not-P will be true, but not both P and not-P and so on. To say you’re abandoning the use of logic in any given analysis, means you’re abandoning these rules, so for example you’ll end up with analyses stating both P and not-P. But that isn’t an analysis. It’s sheer nonsense. That’s why you can’t categorize this as non-logical.

-Jon

[JCFolsom]

@Jon Irenicus

Think through the implications of what you’re saying. To analyze something via logic, one will typically be applying a number of rules, e.g. inferences from true premises will be truth-preserving, either P or not-P will be true, but not both P and not-P and so on. To say you’re abandoning the use of logic in any given analysis, means you’re abandoning these rules, so for example you’ll end up with analyses stating both P and not-P. But that isn’t an analysis. It’s sheer nonsense. That’s why you can’t categorize this as non-logical.

You can, but what it means is that you should not try to apply logic to time to that level, because logic does not apply. It literally means you shouln’t even try. Thus, you avoid the nonsense. Time exists, yet is not open to logical analysis to that level. So, don’t. You’ll be making a mistake. And, realize that because of that, logical conclusions, however certain they might seem, always have an element of doubt, because logic can only actually analyze an ideal version of reality, not reality as it actually exists. It can be very close in some ways, so it’s not fruitless, but there will always be an element of doubt.

[Jon_Irenicus]

I think you need to re-read my post. You cannot exclude any analysis from being subject to logic, for it to remain coherent and sensible. I’m not sure what you think logic is, but properly conceived it’s a tool, without which nothing can be analyzed.

-Jon

[Stephen_Forde]

@JCFolsom

if I promise to give you a hamburger after infinite time, that is equivalent to saying I will never give you a hamburger. Similarly, saying that time stretches infinitely into the past is nonsensical, because that would place us at the end of an already infinite series of events, the end of which, by definition, cannot exist.

The end exists. It’s the beginning of the series of events that lead to our point in time that cannot exist. There is no paradox here, just an equivocation.