All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Im absolutely loving these conversations, keep uploading them! Watched Alex years ago when i started my atheistic journey. And found unsolicited advice only recently, to hear these discussions is absolutely wonderful!
@@ichthyostegaxd3727 I can explain it, but maybe I'll ask a question first, because I'm curious to know what will happen. When you see a traffic light which has 3 logical states (and by the way 1 superposition and sometimes an indefinite state), do you start to wonder "oh my god, where did that come from? The world is so mysterious." or not?
@keitumetsemodipa3012 Truth is whatever makes you achieve the goal. @keitumetsemodipa3012 Earth is flat when you try to draw a map of your town. Earth is round when you try to draw a map of the world. General Relativity is true when you try to launch a satellite. General relativity is false when you try to figure out what happens inside a black hole.
I'm a civil engineering student which is about as utilitarian as it gets admittedly, but the cool philosophy class I'm taking now and this video makes me wanna minor in philosophy that'd be cool. I'm an aspiring Catholic and yet I find both of your channels so appealing and have been watching you both before your collab haha
Go for it, man. I may be biased as I'm a Phil PhD candidate, but one thing I feel people should consider more often is to experience and learn stuff without further applications, just for the sake of curiosity or understanding as knowledge can be an end in itself.
@@mobili2 Yeah! And even if you wanted to find some use out of it one could argue becoming a more intellectually hardened person allows for acting better in any circumstance which could help anyone be better at any career. Being a civil engineering student, I'm fascinated by cities and how they are designed and developed, which makes me think about social philosophy often.
“As an aspiring catholic” No offense but you can easily debunk all abrahamic religions by simple historical analysis. Don’t waste your time with that crap
@@mrman5066 I'm atheist (of the agnostic flavor -- i.e. I really don't know whether God exists or not and feel it is impossible to say) but don't listen to that dude. I wish you success in that endeavor and a good life my friend
as a philosopher of logic, i’m rarely forced to feel the discomfort of listening to non experts discuss my area of expertise! but it was a good effort, and not all bad.
@@mlokosss sure! I'll try to be brief. First, there is a bit of a problem with the question from the start, since from Aristotle up until the 20th century, 'logic' meant something very different from what it means today. The old way of thinking about logic was that it was a formal set of rules for good reasoning (e.g., the syllogisms), and nowadays logic is better understood like any scientific theory, i.e., a logical theory purports to describe something, namely the conditions under which relations of validity and entailment hold for sets of propositions. The old way of thinking about logic makes for an interesting question about why we hold some rather than other logical rules as the standard for good reasoning. This mirrors other deep questions about value we find in places like metaethics, e.g., why we think some things are wrong, and we find the same kinds of views: various kinds of realism and anti-realism. I'm more of an anti-realist (i.e., there are no objective, mind-independent facts which ground our values), but I'm not a conventionalist (i.e., we have certain logical laws as a standard of good reasoning arbitrarily given our culture/history). The view I prefer and argue for in my work is called constitutivism. There is a super short wiki article on constitutivism, and another primer for learning about this kind of view can be found on the SEP article for constructivism in metaethics. So, my view is constitutivism applied to logic. Basically, the origins of logic are bound up in what it means for humans to engage in anything we call thinking. Logic doesn't describe how we think (we actually tend to be really bad at deductive reasoning), but rather the laws of logic are a constitutive standard for how we ought to think. The contemporary view of logic makes the origin question kind of trivial, since the origin of any given logical theory is the product of some human activity. We can complicate this answer by asking whether there is one logical theory in particular among the many that is correct in some important sense. Now we are in the territory of standard metaphysics for abstracta like numbers, and the standard views can be found: again, various forms of realism and anti-realism. I don't find this area of research particularly interesting myself, but my preferred view is again anti-realist, but with respect to our contemporary understanding of logic, I tend to be quite extreme, thinking that logical relativism or pluralism is the only view that makes sense. See for instance Gillian Russell's excellent paper on what she calls `logical nihilism'.
I have some specific thoughts regarding this. Specifically, I think it originated from being able to interpret inputs. When an input received a signal, in order to have any kind of perception there must be a change from one point in time and another. At this point, there would be both A and A' (observation at T1) and B and B' (observation at T2). If these is no distinction between A and B, there can be nothing perceived. So given this, in order to have perception, we must have the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity. I think the law of excluded middle is just because when we label things we generally do so in a form of sets. Where A is a subset or identical to B or the inverse, they fit the law of excluded middle. This is where A and B are the labels for some sets.
@jsmall10671 until there is actual evidence of such a thing, sure. Either way, if there is no change between T1 and T2, there would be no perception of anything. That doesn't change if something is in a superposition or not.
I like your idea. So then logic is not a fundamental law of reality itself but as self-organizing patterns of information processing arise out of whatever the soupy fuzzy fundamental reality is, it overlays a perception of distinctness over top of entropy (the simple reality that it is more probable for an information state to exist in any of a number than one particular) Look up a pbs spacetime episode called “the brains role in creating spacetime” it talks about a perceptual system that kinda overlays reality “at the joints”. So you’re saying is that what we perceive as distinct objects might arise from a perception of change or if time is an emergent overlay the reality of informational entropy. I’m thinking perhaps there’s an underlying entanglement geometry that is beneath time and time arises as a perception as you navigate probability/potentiality space.
5:57 it might be worth noting that, in formal logic, this idea requires _completeness_ of your logic. A logic is said to be complete if, whenever every interpretation that satisfies the premises also satisfies the conclusion, the same can be said for a syntactic derivation (i.e. proofs that are just string manipulation). The converse of this statement is called soundness: that every syntactic derivation is also semantically valid. Kurt Gödel was the first to show completeness of classical first-order logic, which is used in modern mathematics today. The principle of explosion can be expressed both semantically and syntactically; you gave the semantic argument, while the syntactic argument (in classical prop. logic) goes something like: 1. P and not P 2. P (by 1) 3. not P (by 1) 4. P or A (by 2, disjunction intro.) 5. A (by 3 and 4, disjunction elim.)
If everyone decided that T was F and F was T, or that AND was NOT and NOT was AND, Then logic would continue to work just fine! Ultimately, logic is a kind of protocol which is required to communicate. The laws were established when we agreed that T meant T, and F meant F, and that we should be consistent with our statements.
@@sinx2247 You can swap AND with a picture of a banana, and logic still makes sense. As long as you're consistent, and we established common meaning beforehand.
Can anything that exists have contradictory properties? If the answer is no, then logic is a natural consequence. If yes, then anything could be true and reason is impotent. Anything that could exist must cohere. Anything that is incoherent is the same as not existing.
Or you might be committing a false dichotomy because you simply lack the information to explain otherwise. Like there might be a third case where all these problems are resolved.
@@Jackson_Zheng if you understood what you are saying is that there can be square-circles and there not be self defeating "anything could be true." Sorry, but no. That is a contradiction inside another contradiction. All you done is reinforce the true dichotomy.
i mean people can believe contradictory things, and act on them, so kinda? What would an object with contradictory properties actually entail? Why couldnt I just refactor my model of reality to include that contradiction such that my new model isnt contradictory? We ultimately have to describe something as contradictory or not after all, so this is fundamentally tied to our ability to describe things.
Logic is just statements of destinction and implications that are reliable and consistent. Like the rules of chess veing the same tomorrow as today if you act them out. But there is a question of where the practice of logic comes from and what generates the activity and definitions there in practice, since this is the only kind of logic we ever encounter. And the answer is the physical world or the world that exists, it cannot "come" from somewhere else, and so the degree to which our logic is sound, or applicable or self consistent is a question about what happens in the world when we invent or use, or appeal to logic. And since we are asking this question from within this physics or whateverelsical existence, we cannot ever close that circle formally. Logic is an uncontrolled and unsupervised reasoning process we don't audit as we go, giving rise to sharp destinctions and rules we attempt to follow and to formalize in a constant way. So the question of what is logic as we encounter it is a question a question existence and the form of existence, good luck closing that circle it is impossibru to give a definite answer.
My intuition is that logical laws are like physical laws in that they're both just descriptions of reality that are sufficiently ubiquitous, in our experience, to seem inviolate. Gauss's Law wasn't prescribed; it's just a description of how magnetic flux seems to work whenever we look at it. Noncontradiction wasn't prescribed; it's just a reflection on the reality that nobody ever sees A and not-A concurrently in the same context.
My justification for using logic is that I don't know how to do otherwise. I can't know that it will always work in future but since it's always worked in the past, I have no idea how to prepare for its possible failure.
I mean practically that is the same with the Cogito. It is of course possible that our senses are deceiving us and the world doesn't really exist. Maybe we do live in a simulation. But there's not really a point to act as if it isn't. Because if our senses are deceiving us, there is no way in which we can ever know for sure either way. In the same way that if logic truly doesn't work, then it might be the case that we have no way of ever truly knowing if it works or not.
@@catholicguy3605 well what kind of logic would justify logic without being circular? you need something outside of logic to justify it probably, but we have no non logical justification tools
@@catholicguy3605 no because what justifies God? God is self-justifying? How do you know logic isn't self-justifying by its nature? i.e.: If logic is false, then logic is true. And if logic is true then it has to remain true by logic of self-consistency (i.e. X = X). You can't just make up a solution with 0 evidence that only pushes the questions back to a layer were historically you'd be killed for asking questions further. God as you know him doesn't exist for many reasons.
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
This question, like all silly metaphysical questions, only makes sense if you first assume that humans use language to "correspond to the world." Without that assumption, you realize that someone who asks this question is betraying their lack of understanding of their own assumptions.
Well, humans do use some language (propositional language, that is) to “correspond to the world”. Even better: humans use THOUGHT to do so, and then language is just a tool to communicate it. Which is to say: Wittgenstein was an idiot, like OMG how stupid his pseudo-philosophy was!
@cirqueyeagerist5641 You can easily use language to critique using language for searching correspondent truths, if you use the same language just because it's useful. So you critique the way of using language, but not using language itself.
@@Michael-k8w7q your argument assumes that because you're using language to critique language, you can't critique language itself only its use. However, this is flawed because language is not just a neutral tool , it influences how we think and understand truth. By using language to critique its limitations, you're not contradicting yourself , just as you can use reasoning to critique flawed reasoning. Language can have structural biases or limitations, and recognizing those doesn’t invalidate the critique, even if you use language to express it.
@@cirqueyeagerist5641Talking about language's limitations is actually one of the ways to critique its using for some purposes, so there is no contradiction between mine words and your.
Logic is simply a mathematical structure. It is not prior to mathematics in any form. A better question is where does mathematics come from. Brouwer's philosophy of intuitionism is probably the most coherent answer to that question, independently of whether you endorse his rejection of excluded middle.
I’d say both logic and mathematics are a byproducts of our universe’s tendency to obey cause and effect. We can only math we’re fairly sure incrementing an integer by one always results in the following integer.
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees a little bit. There are lowercase ‘L’ logics, like the classical and non-classical, that you could call mathematical structures. Then there is capital ‘L’, Logic, which is an umbrella term encompassing our meta conversation about logics. Where Logic comes from is more of a question of why is our world coherently structured. Because if you have some kind of coherent structure, tautologically, there will exist some “logic” that describes it. Brower’s intuitionism just begs the question of why are minds even capable of constructing any logics
@@TheBigWazowski I think you're just equivocating. There are mathematical structures which are logics and then there is our imposition of these mathematical structures onto the world. All of a sudden, validity becomes this normative thing, rather than a purely mathematical definition. But a valid argument has no actual relationship to the world. A valid instance of modus ponens does not cause anything to be the case. It's merely a description of the form of the argument. Logic bears no substantial relationship with natural language either. The value of classical logic is found in its capacity to be used in classical mathematics. But the question of "what follows from what" is meaningless without a domain to which it refers, and the "world as such" is not a domain.
@@IndustrialMilitiaI don’t really disagree with anything you’re saying, but I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. I’m just reiterating what was said in the video from 1:45-2:12. If you think that’s equivocating, then okay… I never suggested that a logical implication generates reality. The question is why does reality have enough structure for us to apply logics to it. Brower’s intuitionism does not answer this question
I like his point that we use the laws of logic to analyse the laws of logic. This implies there must have been some Nash equilibrium formed in the game between the dynamics of the outer world and the dynamics of the inner world, to get to a 'reasonable logic' out of all the logics that can analyse both itself and the outer world. My opinion this equillibrium is found and based on the pauli exclusion principle, that is something maybe a mix from both our genetic past as bacteria, and our observational past as animal observers, combined. It creates for us the physical concept of law of non contradiction, and from this the other laws followed imo
Logics are formal languages and we can use them to express thoughts and reasons, just like with natural languages like English. The laws of logic describe how we can syntactically alter sentences to simulate a process of reasoning. I don't think we have to make it more complicated than this.
@@El_Bruno7510 how can a brain pass from electric signal to concept , first of all , second of all , since Logic is identity , how can a brain be before building Logic ?
@@planteruines5619 Easy. Evolution. Prove logic is identity. Logic is invented by an evolved brain to explain certain concepts. Logic comes AFTER evolved brains. Explain how your god is not incoherent.
@@El_Bruno7510 Logic (the classic) has a law called identity , in which it is said that when something is , it is , contradiction comes from two identities being incompatible (like you and me , we are not the same ) , and no , Logic doesn't come from our mind (since the brain isn't even the center of consciousness but the main piece of the circuitry ) since it pre exists it (otherwise , contradiction ) , thirdly , evolution is not a debunk except maybe for the protestant fundamentalist , and lastly my God is cohérent because logic is coherent and God = Logic
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
I think a lot of questions like this one can be traced back to framing it in the wrong way. Not every concept that we can talk about "comes from" something in the way that heat comes from fire.
Logic, like science, isn't about building a perfect answer, but rather about following the evidence and engaging with scrutiny. We are the apex predator of a world built on the suffering and survival of millions of years of life forms, and we have relatively recently developed communication with each other. It's perfectly reasonable to accept the idea that our understanding of logic is incomplete while still endeavoring to expand our understanding of it
Yeah but that opens up another box of questions. Mainly: why does the universe seem to hold any logical structure at all. What does this say about the reality of logical rules
@@planteruines5619 Wrong. You need empirical reasoning to reason to logic and you get empirical reasoning by empiricism. That is grounded in materialism.
@@El_Bruno7510 nah logic is présupposed to do empiricist mesurmement , you can use empiric data to fuel a logical argument however, but not the logical structure itself
@@planteruines5619 Wrong. Your god is presupposed to be the giver of logic. Which is absolutely laughable. You demonstrably need empirical data to prove logic. Prove otherwise.
Logic or inference is based on our concept of cause and effect. An infant must understand A=A, and that 'A' has object permance to be capable of forming expectations or inferences.
I was very surprised by the tired old misrepresentation of theism. (At least classic Christian theism). It's a classic false dichotomy of God being either arbitrary or else governed by abstract universals. Instead, God's nature is the source and foundation of fundamental aspects of reality, such as logic, goodness, beauty. Consequently, God would not do otherwise, but also simultaneously is not constrained by any of them.
@@nicholaslogan5185 if we talking about God in classical theism it's definitely not boundless. And it's not a great claim, you can check it out for yourself. But if you're talking about another kind of God it can be anything you like, of course.
The avoidance of contradiction confers evolutionary benefits. These benefits give rise to a drive to avoid contradiction. The drive to avoid contradiction is captured by the Law of Non-Contradiction. The Law of Non-Contradiction is encapsulated by the Sheffer Stroke operation. The Sheffer Stroke can be successively applied to derive of all other operations of classical logic. Logic is the systematic avoidance of contradiction.
Laws of Logic are perhaps like the Laws of Physics. We don't create them. We discover them. We discover gravity by watching things "fall". We discover the law of identity by seeing things being exclusively identified.
Huh, no. We definitely create the laws of logic. Student in Master in Logic and Computation here. A lot of classical logic feels so obvious as to be baked into the real world to people, but some of it is very much not; also, it's far from the only logic we've invented. Many logics are created to make sense of the world: for example, default logic is an attempt at making inferences in the absence of information, motivated by the fact that people infer some things by default. All sorts of logics do all sorts of things, and are appropriate for different applications... It's a bit like having multiple tools you can use to fix a car.
@@momom6197 "Create" - ex nihilo - to bring into existence. So you claim humans make up the Laws of Logic out of thin air? Well actually not even thin air because that would be out of something. Rather than adherence to known identifiable processes? Aristotle made up Excluded Middle from whole cloth?
To determine whether logic is discovered or created is as absurd as determining whether god exists or not. To determine something, you need knowledge and truth. Logic relies on presuppositions, presuppositions cannot be known and therefore cannot be known to be true. Philosophy is about reasoning from tautologies, which is an impossible task for a human. This is the "strongest" intuition. The answer to every philosophical question is that you don’t know, because you have no reasonable knowledge/proof. You have beliefs and emotions, those are not reasonable.
@@kasuo7039 To posit a god's existence is the absurdity! If this confuses you. So will any attempt at logic. Knowledge/ proof? I think... therefore... But this seems to also confuse you.
@@kasuo7039 interesting, so you don't know that "The answer to every philosophical question is that you don’t know, because you have no reasonable knowledge/proof" because you have no reasonable knowledge or proof, only beliefs and emotions...
Such an interesting concept; it appears to me that no matter how you examine logic (theistically or not), it becomes inevitably self-explanatory whereby some primitive or "base-case" logic is required to ground the rest of logic.
This is why I'm doing a phd in math (and what I remind myself when I feel like I shouldn't). I just find this sort of thing super trippy and cool. I don't necessarily do logic (at least not yet), but I do enjoy getting to interact with the part of reality that fascinates me most on a daily basis.
if you haven't already you should try learning computer science from the ground up. like logic gates and circuits and stuff. Its supper fascinating and you can physically see the manifestation of logic within the universe physically build on itself to create a more complex structure.
It comes from the law of identity and its corollary, the law of non contradiction. Things are what they are. And it works so well because we’re right, things actually are what they are.
I would say, from the theistic point of view, this problem mirrors the euthyphro dilemma and solution. *- "Is something good because God says it’s good, or because it is good?"* *- "Is the world logical because God made it logical, or because it is logical?"* This dilemma suggests that either goodness/logic are arbitrary or that they are independent of God, both being logically inconsistent. The solution to both is that goodness/logic is inherent in God and comes from his very nature, not because of an arbitrary decision nor because they are independent of God and thereby God is subject to them.
Isn’t it more likely they it derivative of the capacity of thought we have? Maybe as a set of rules that “ought” to be followed when engaging in logical thinking. Almost like a projection of our thoughts on to material reality. We can never escape the confines of our minds.
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
Professor Susan hack pretty much put the nail in the coffin on logic no? I’m talking about her paper on the problem of deduction. Does anyone know if there have been recent developments since then?
"Why is the world not chaos and darkness" is answered basically by the fact that physics is tuned for us to exist. Our neurons and languages are structured such that we can infer the nature of platonic ideals from our environment using biological capabilities. These ideals are encoded into your brain by connecting neural synapses, and those synapses and networks are capable of performing operations like XOR, OR, AND, and NAND. This biological basis underlying humans ability to compute and think is founded on it's physical basis. Biology is based on chemisty. Chemistry is based on physics. Physics corresponds to math, Math logic. The actual rules are simply relationships which remain invariant. You encounter a situation where the rules work, and they don't change, so you then learn them by exposure. The environment encodes a noisy version of the rules, and your brain converges onto that simplified relationship, removing the noise. If Physics were different, we might not be able to do this.We might not even exist. God is tricky, because, well, he's not well-defined, by definition. He's intentionally inscrutable and unquestionable. Basically, we're a bit like those videos where somebody makes a computer in Minecraft. Our brain is the simulated computer built in the Minecraft game, physics is the Minecraft world written in Java, and Logic or God is the computer everything runs on, ensuring the world is sensible, rather than chaos and darkness.
Just to spinn off that thought about quantum logic there, logic starts becomming a compound concept. First there is the fact that particles or whatnot can be described in a more chaotic way, which is then what the new laws of logic are based on, but there is also the asumption that the description of, or the laying out of the new type of rules has some order to it. In other words even a desciption of chaos has some logic in it, but it might be a more, from our understanding, fragmented type of logic.
Simple. Logic is invented by human beings. That is why different human beings use different logic. There are some clues that other animals have logic too. Logical thinking is a product of human evolution.
Just read "Origin of the Logical", aphorism 111 from Nietzsche's "The Joyful Wisdom". It just begins like this: "Where has logic originated in men's heads? Undoubtedly out of the illogical".
@8:30 I didn't see the test. I only heard of it. And I don't even know if it was a legend or if it actually happened. But IIRC the experiment conditioned rats to where a buzzer went off a short while before the floor shocked their feet. And the rats could, by pressing a lever, not only deactivate the shock that would happen, but also receive a food pellet -- presumably an enjoyable food pellet. Nothing really surprising there. But after conditioning the rats this way, the 'scientists' took the food pellet reward out of the equation. And the rats continued to press the lever to remove the negative stimulus (the electrified cage floor). Not really surprising. It's an association. The surprising part came when they shocked the rats even if the rats pressed the lever. Those rats did basically just cower in their cages unable to process reality any further. It's horrifying to imagine doing this to any animal.
If everything exists unless something prevents it from existing, and the only thing which would prevent something from existing is the non-contradiction principle (which is the only thing I see which does), then the non contradiction principle would exist, because nothing wouldn't exist until it does.
You are confusing material objects with concepts invented by material objects. And you entire premise is that the default position is that things only exist because there is nothing preventing them from existing. That is bizarre!
The laws of logic come from nature. Natural laws allow us to make definitions and logical updates. There are laws that don't allow that. If we assume the natural laws, then it comes from the definition.
From definitions flow the laws of logic for deterministic things. For probabilistic things we have a different toolkit: statistics and inference. One may argue all is deterministic it's just that we can't calculate it all and so probability is our coping mechanism and that's fair if quantum mechanics Uncertainty is shown later to be incorrect.
Christianity's answer to "can God create a rock so big He can't move it" is "yes and He did" as Christ, who became a man and died on a cross. The question is based upon whether or not an omnipotent being could limit himself. Of course, why not? If limited beings can, of course an unlimited one could.
Ah, another comment. Logic could be grounded in the nature of God, just as goodness is grounded in the nature of God. God doesn't just do good things, he is good, in fact he is Goodness. You could probably do something like that with logic too, but i won't try. Maybe you could argue that logic is the way it is, because God is the way he is.
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
I think it's just a lot simpler than that. My view is to simply take the scientific perspective and believe that we are simply takinga guess - a random shot in the dark - but it just so happens to be directed by evolution and the laws of physics. So there is a small probability that the basic rules of logic is wrong or incomplete, and there is a possibility of a contradiction somewhere in the universe, but it is so obscure that we have not found it as of yet. So in essence, logic is good enough tool to use until we find evidence of contradictions in the natural world.
What is the true nature of reality is complete infinite randomness we are in a bit of randomness that happens to be incredibly well-ordered as if it’s not random.
The laws of logic are given great weight by the mathematics that we have been able to do with it, and the trend with modern mathematics is that physics seems to connect to many of these concepts and structures. Obviously we still have problems, and mathematicians still disagree about foundations but its a more immediate practical question even for the few I've spoken to, the logic and axioms bear fruit and so they use it, for now Basically, do you agree or disagree with certain logical foundations and set theoretic / categorical formulations, and if you disagree do you understand everything else that you're disagreeing with?
11:35 This is the Euthyphro Dilemma but applied to logic. God doesn't will logic; He is logic itself. Using the wee analogy of the sun emitting light can be a helpful way to illustrate the concept that God is logic itself rather than merely willing logic into existence. In this wee analogy: Inherent Nature: The sun emits light not because it chooses to, but because emitting light is an inherent aspect of its nature. It's what the sun is. God as Logic: Likewise, God doesn't decide to conform to logic or create logical laws; rather, He is logic itself. Logic emanates from God just as light emanates from the sun. The analogy demonstrates that logic is not external to God or subject to His will but is an essential attribute of His very being. Just as the sun cannot be separated from the light it emits, God cannot be separated from logic.
In your analogy God is the sun, and in mine God is the legislator, which means he creates laws. Does the analogy imply reality? Can you demonstrate the truth of your thoughts? Ps. the sun is not light, light is a derivative of the sun.
@@АртурИванов-ч9э God, being an eternal and uncreated entity, implies that the laws He establishes are also uncreated and exist outside of time and creation. In contrast, a human legislator is a finite, created being whose laws are products of temporal existence. This creates a potential category error in the analogy between God and a legislator. That said, I'll provide a more detailed response later, as I'm currently occupied with work.
Christians normally ground logic in God by saying that logic is a reflection of God’s nature. This is different from saying that God created the laws of logic. From the Christian pov, God is the source of truth (John 14:6, Col 2:3) and as a result logical principles which helps discern truth from wrong must be a reflection of God’s unchanging and perfect nature.
Can God change his nature? Or is God's nature > God? And by the way, does it mean that not only truth follows from God's nature, but also logical contradictions, the falsity of something?
@@АртурИванов-ч9э God is immutable. Immutability is a God-making attribute. So that by definition, God does not change. So the first two questions are invalid. I don’t know how it follows from what I said that logical contradictions follows from God’s nature.
If an animal brain recognizes that "if there's a predator then i have three options". To simplify. Then given that those phenomena work that way. We recognize these aspects in reality and then conceptualize it. In this case it's nature following a logical structure
For the curious: The law of bivalence says that any proposition *can* only be true or false, while the law of the excluded middle says that anything *has* to be either true or false.
It’s just like I was thinking about my bio test: how can you be tested on something that is based on the most “proven” and accepted theories and where nothing is considered “fact”.
I have thought about this too and I think religous people can probably say that god itself is logic. same way he is love itself. I think that would work for them. So he cannot lift an unliftable stone which he made for the same reason he cannot commit evil. its against his nature.
I am also no Quantum physicist, so this is probably wrong for some reason that would be incredibly obvious to someone who is, but to me it seems that a wave is the definitional opposite of a particle, therefore something in reality cannot both be a particle and simultaneously be a wave ( a not particle), because of the law of noncontradiction. However in reality, it seems that this is the case almost all the time everywhere, where things are behaving both as particles and as waves simultaneously, which seems to violate the law of noncontradiction. I wonder if anyone can help me correct this
In my understanding, wave-particle duality is an observation from classical physics in which things seem to have wave-like properties in one set of circumstances and particle-like properties in another set of circumstances. It wasn't meant to say that the thing _is_ both a wave and a particle, simultaneously. In quantum physics, they talk about "quanta," which are conceptual particles whose existence is statistical in nature and described by a "wave function." I think a lot of confusion comes from the way subject matter experts reuse terms between quantum and classical physics.
the problem is in the language. "particles" are neither. They are something else! WE dont have a word for it, they tried "wavicle", but it didnt work. The current term is "quantum object".
The laws of logic exist because the universe needs to be free of contradictions and paradoxes or it could not exist. Ultimately, this points back to a designer and a creator. This is easy to understand, as chaos is much easier to exist than order. Hence, the universe should be inherently chaotic, but the fact that it is not speaks volumes as it strongly implies a will.
@@rujotheone We find logic in order. The 'logic' comes from the type of order we find. Logic is descriptive. A could continue in a line and be called ordered. A could zig zag uniformly and be called ordered. A could move under and number of uniform sequences and be called ordered. The logic we find to describe A's movements would be different each time and would not be in place prior to the order A appears to follow.
The laws of logic come from humans. When people usually mention 'laws of logic' they are using a subset of laws of a subset of all logics. We can 'rule out' some types of logics by virtue of the fact that they seem inconsistent with our observations (like all x are not x) -- so stuff like the paraconsistent logics are excluded from our possible logic sets.
Alex is probably like Nikacado Avocado tricking us into thinking that he's crazy for not shaving that moustache but actually it's long gone and all this time he was two steps ahead of us.... Let that sink in
Without logic logic wouldn't matter, logically speaking . "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." Is this an argument for the importance of logical reasoning over emotional or irrational conclusions . Is logical reasoning prioritised because of the outcome ? Is logic natural and immutable ?
If quantum mechanics follow different laws of logic then we're used to then why does math still predict it? Might not be articulated well but think about it. Math is just a very quantitative form of logic so it seem like a valid question.
The most fascinating thing about this video and the comment section is the low amount of Likes. Its like the concepts themselves are so intriguing, people are spending more time pondering and self reflecting. It's oddly reassuring.
Christian apologetics for the living logic as logos is the most suffistcated outcome for our reasoning on the pounderance of the source. Logic is the source of all things like code. Yahweh, brahma. I call it the "all no-thing"
Why does no one talk about logic being only achievable because we interface with a phonetic alphabet? A place for everything and everything in its place. It’s a visual/spatial metaphor like our notions of time.
2 месяца назад
I don't understand why you say there is a problem for theism as well. In theism God is the source of logic, meaning logic is the way the mind of God functions. Since God is eternal, there is no PRIOR to logic, it was always functioning like this, and GOD cannot change His nature, it's not like He can change the logic and contradict Himself, it would literally mean for Him to change His nature, but God fundamentally is not changeable in His nature, because whatever is changeable is corruptible (as Augustin puts it), and Him being perfect, should be unchangeable in His nature. Either I didn't understood well, or you see the source of logic differently in theism, but personally I don't see any problem of grounding it. thanks for the nice discussion!
The highest and most prior form of logic is that of identity. It is the only truly fundamental logic, and for the theist God is the identity of identity.
@FVLMEN Logos means "reason", "speech", "word". It is often used in philosophical and theological contexts to refer to the fundamental order of reasoning which governs the universe. Logos is an older word it's date back to the pre-socratic philosophers. Thr Greek word logic is logikē and it refers to the systematic study of reasoning, particularly formal and structured reasoning processes. Logic is developed later particularly by aristotle. Logic comes from the concept of Logos.
Other species percieve things differently from us. Do they also perceive metaphysics differently from us? Do they have different laws of logic that make sense to them but not us? Do higher dimensional beings have different perception of logic?
I think the laws of logic are linguistic (in that has to do with languages). Logic is more like a construction of the most rigorous possible language. When we say both: "A" and "A implies B" then "B" This argument is valid only because that is literally what the word "implies" even means in the first place. Or take the law of excluded middle and contrast a logical language to a less rigorous language like English. I can say "This cup has no water in it and this cup has water in it." Well, what if the cup is full of snow which is made of H2O? Does that count as water? It depends on precisely what we mean by "water" That's why I think logic is more about finding/making a rigorous language than anything else.
Aren’t you sidestepping the question though? I mean you are right that logic, as we use it, is a linguistic construct. But my interpretation of the real question here is, how come the world coheres with logic? How come that it’s possible to construct any empirically valid logic at all. Why does the world appear to be bound by pattern and number and law?
@@johannesrehnstrom1058 But like, what would it even look like for the world to not be blind by numbers? I have trouble even imagining such a world because every time I try, I can find some way to apply numbers to that conception. I could maybe imagine a world without patterns, but that's a separate question than whether logic exists. Also, I'm not sure what I am sidestepping "construction of the most rigorous language" is my attention answer of the question: "where does logic come from"
@@PiRobot314 First let me say I'm sorry. Accusing you of avoiding the question was combative and uncalled for. What I rather should say is that the question of where logic comes from has several dimensions, and some of them are to my mind more important. I think your answer is a good explanation for the process by which humans grasp logic. But there is a metaphysical dimension which is yet unanswered; How come there is logic "in the world". How come nature acts according to fixed laws? How come mathematics; which existsinly in the human mind, is so apt at describing the actions of nature? I have no clue what it would look like for the world to not be bound by the principles of math. But there is a deep mystery here. Because math seems to be entirely un-caused by the laws of nature. I can't imagine that 1+1 would become anything other than 2, even if some law of nature was different, for example. Math seems to be independent if natural laws, but natural laws don't seem to be independent of math. Put in terms of causation, it appears that the laws of numbers are not caused by the laws of nature, but the laws of nature are somehow, at least in part, caused by the laws of numbers. How is that possible!? Summarized in a sentence: Logic appears to be more profound than a mere construction of human language, as indeed it appears to be more profound than the existence of the universe. How do we account for that?
@@johannesrehnstrom1058 Okay, I think I see what you are saying more now. No problem, There are lots of different but closely related questions here. When I talked about having answered the question, I was talking about the literal: "where does logic come from?" question. But there are many other important questions which are related but not exactly the same. Questions like, "How come nature abides by fixed laws?" And "How are we able to use mathematics to describe nature?" Ultimately, I don't know the answers to these fascinating questions. One thing that might be the start of an answer is that I think we are actively trying to describe the universe with mathematics and building theories about how matter interacts. I don't think any of our current mathematical understandings are 100% accurate either. Like, for instance, Newton described equations for gravity, which was a mathematical description of the universe. We now know that although those equations are close to reality, the equations of general relativity are even closer to reality, though still not perfect. I'm sure that at some point, that theory will be replaced by an even more accurate one.
Perhaps logic is the filter through which the mind apprehends the world, and therefore it impossible to observe or comprehend the illogical. If logic IS the machinery of human perception, that would explain both why humans can reason, and why the world appears to have logic in it. … but if so, the challenge is to explain why humans tend to accept fallacies 🤔
@@planteruines5619 Yes that is precisely what it would mean; That man is not capable of knowing the world as it is, but only of knowing it as it appears to us. And being inconvenienced by the implication, doesn't make it false. I wonder, is there reason to believe that we can know the world as it is, that the senses reveal the world to us in its fullness?
@@johannesrehnstrom1058 i mean , there would be nothing since being and non-being would be , well , we can't even say identical since it would instaure once again Logic , truth would be so out of hand it would not exist and exist and exist and not exist , well , adhering to this position and pushing it to it's application would mean that you would not even be able to talk through this comment section
Logic is a map/representation of reality but it is not the terrain. If we look at the current increase in scientists positing a sort of quantum monism or even ancient traditions we get a sense that reality is an underlying one (call it whatever you want) that is manifesting as distinctness/objects/representations. “Idolatry” can be thought of as mistaking the representations of underlying ultimate reality as the ultimately reality itself. Physicists are realizing from multiple lines of investigation that spacetime (distinctness) is likely a sort of emergent illusion. As as the self organizing, self sustaining information pattern we call life arises out of this soup of oneness then it begins shaping its perception as one of distinct self and world of objects. This separation undergirds the sense that our world is made of distinct objects. Multiple modes of inquiry from the scientific to spiritual seem to be pointing to this. Specifically as apes with thumbs 4E cog sci shows our intuitions and conceptual worlds are built ground up from more basal embodied ones. Our impulse to grasp things with our hands applies to our perceptual & conceptual world so we even more saliently reify a world of discrete objects and lay that on top of reality like a map. This is kinda don hoffmans idea I believe with a world of useful interface “icons”. The code underneath your desktop trash can bears little resemblance to a trash can but it’s a useful representation to operate. Our perceptual reality is like this. Fundamental reality is likely much more nebulous and non-discrete. Logic is one powerful way to navigate this reality. Like a coordinate grid. But if things are fundamentally entangled with each other then to parse them into dualistic an and b entities distorts their true nature. I am you and not you. The boundaries between us are ill defined, permeable, and mutually co-create. Even in spacetime relativity position is only relative to some other position and with the 2022 Nobel discovery in quantum Physics non-local reality also means properties themselves find their being in interaction and relationship to others. Our reality is dynamic and interwoven and logic provides a language to talk about it but does not capture it. Underneath it is the presumption of distinct entities. Even what I’ve thus described only asymptotically describes the reality I’m pointing at.
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
Logic comes from Maryland he's rapped about it in his songs, he likes to rep it
Lmfao
bro I had the exact same joke lol
and he's also biracial
All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY
Something can be possible and illogical at the same time. For example a mustache
👨👨
No
@@Home-o2v4h then how do you explain his mustache?
Everybody has a go at growing a moustache at some point in their life; my wife left it late.
@@elartedeparartemoustache is an identity, therefore it is logically possible to exist
Im absolutely loving these conversations, keep uploading them! Watched Alex years ago when i started my atheistic journey. And found unsolicited advice only recently, to hear these discussions is absolutely wonderful!
Alex has a mustache
Alex does not have a mustache
Therefore: What the hell was Alex thinking when he grew that mustache?
Alex is not bound by the laws of logic
Or is it Alex had a mustache
Alex has a mustache and you are aware of them both existing
What a great logical valid argument!!!
That's not an argument. The conclusion isn't a question - it must be an assertoric proposition.
I agree… that both are illogical
Physicist here. The laws of logic come from the definition. Happy to help.
This is why the distinction between signifier and signified is important! :D
Must it?
And where do you get the definition from?
And where does the definition come from?
@@ichthyostegaxd3727 I can explain it, but maybe I'll ask a question first, because I'm curious to know what will happen. When you see a traffic light which has 3 logical states (and by the way 1 superposition and sometimes an indefinite state), do you start to wonder "oh my god, where did that come from? The world is so mysterious." or not?
Very similar to the question of whether math is created or discovered
not really
Yes really
@@mikemcg2828 yes. its exactly the same answer: math and logic is how our cognitive system looks from the inside.
Was literally watching a video on RUclips on that very topic before this one (NdGT)
And the Laws of Physics.
Logic is true because if logic is false, then logic is true.
What is truth?
@@keitumetsemodipa3012is that a religious or a logical question?
@@jamesbeesley2767 It's a philosophical question a metaphysical one to be specific
@keitumetsemodipa3012
Truth is whatever makes you achieve the goal.
@keitumetsemodipa3012
Earth is flat when you try to draw a map of your town. Earth is round when you try to draw a map of the world.
General Relativity is true when you try to launch a satellite. General relativity is false when you try to figure out what happens inside a black hole.
@@鏡花水月-y4i I'm sorry what?
Perhaps rephrasing might help me understand I'm genuinely confused by what you said
I'm a civil engineering student which is about as utilitarian as it gets admittedly, but the cool philosophy class I'm taking now and this video makes me wanna minor in philosophy that'd be cool. I'm an aspiring Catholic and yet I find both of your channels so appealing and have been watching you both before your collab haha
Go for it, man. I may be biased as I'm a Phil PhD candidate, but one thing I feel people should consider more often is to experience and learn stuff without further applications, just for the sake of curiosity or understanding as knowledge can be an end in itself.
@@mobili2 Yeah! And even if you wanted to find some use out of it one could argue becoming a more intellectually hardened person allows for acting better in any circumstance which could help anyone be better at any career. Being a civil engineering student, I'm fascinated by cities and how they are designed and developed, which makes me think about social philosophy often.
“As an aspiring catholic”
No offense but you can easily debunk all abrahamic religions by simple historical analysis. Don’t waste your time with that crap
@@Brad-qw1te oookay wanna go ahead and do that?
@@mrman5066 I'm atheist (of the agnostic flavor -- i.e. I really don't know whether God exists or not and feel it is impossible to say) but don't listen to that dude. I wish you success in that endeavor and a good life my friend
Logic can know if that moustache is about to go or not.
as a philosopher of logic, i’m rarely forced to feel the discomfort of listening to non experts discuss my area of expertise! but it was a good effort, and not all bad.
could you share your take on the origins of logic?
@@mlokosss sure! I'll try to be brief. First, there is a bit of a problem with the question from the start, since from Aristotle up until the 20th century, 'logic' meant something very different from what it means today. The old way of thinking about logic was that it was a formal set of rules for good reasoning (e.g., the syllogisms), and nowadays logic is better understood like any scientific theory, i.e., a logical theory purports to describe something, namely the conditions under which relations of validity and entailment hold for sets of propositions.
The old way of thinking about logic makes for an interesting question about why we hold some rather than other logical rules as the standard for good reasoning. This mirrors other deep questions about value we find in places like metaethics, e.g., why we think some things are wrong, and we find the same kinds of views: various kinds of realism and anti-realism. I'm more of an anti-realist (i.e., there are no objective, mind-independent facts which ground our values), but I'm not a conventionalist (i.e., we have certain logical laws as a standard of good reasoning arbitrarily given our culture/history). The view I prefer and argue for in my work is called constitutivism. There is a super short wiki article on constitutivism, and another primer for learning about this kind of view can be found on the SEP article for constructivism in metaethics. So, my view is constitutivism applied to logic. Basically, the origins of logic are bound up in what it means for humans to engage in anything we call thinking. Logic doesn't describe how we think (we actually tend to be really bad at deductive reasoning), but rather the laws of logic are a constitutive standard for how we ought to think.
The contemporary view of logic makes the origin question kind of trivial, since the origin of any given logical theory is the product of some human activity. We can complicate this answer by asking whether there is one logical theory in particular among the many that is correct in some important sense. Now we are in the territory of standard metaphysics for abstracta like numbers, and the standard views can be found: again, various forms of realism and anti-realism. I don't find this area of research particularly interesting myself, but my preferred view is again anti-realist, but with respect to our contemporary understanding of logic, I tend to be quite extreme, thinking that logical relativism or pluralism is the only view that makes sense. See for instance Gillian Russell's excellent paper on what she calls `logical nihilism'.
@@loudmmind Bravo
@@loudmmind Smartest youtube comment ever
I have some specific thoughts regarding this. Specifically, I think it originated from being able to interpret inputs. When an input received a signal, in order to have any kind of perception there must be a change from one point in time and another. At this point, there would be both A and A' (observation at T1) and B and B' (observation at T2). If these is no distinction between A and B, there can be nothing perceived. So given this, in order to have perception, we must have the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity. I think the law of excluded middle is just because when we label things we generally do so in a form of sets. Where A is a subset or identical to B or the inverse, they fit the law of excluded middle. This is where A and B are the labels for some sets.
Maybe. But you seem to be excluding a possible "quantum" perception where some living thing might be able to perceive superposition.
@jsmall10671 until there is actual evidence of such a thing, sure. Either way, if there is no change between T1 and T2, there would be no perception of anything. That doesn't change if something is in a superposition or not.
I like your idea. So then logic is not a fundamental law of reality itself but as self-organizing patterns of information processing arise out of whatever the soupy fuzzy fundamental reality is, it overlays a perception of distinctness over top of entropy (the simple reality that it is more probable for an information state to exist in any of a number than one particular)
Look up a pbs spacetime episode called “the brains role in creating spacetime” it talks about a perceptual system that kinda overlays reality “at the joints”. So you’re saying is that what we perceive as distinct objects might arise from a perception of change or if time is an emergent overlay the reality of informational entropy. I’m thinking perhaps there’s an underlying entanglement geometry that is beneath time and time arises as a perception as you navigate probability/potentiality space.
5:57 it might be worth noting that, in formal logic, this idea requires _completeness_ of your logic. A logic is said to be complete if, whenever every interpretation that satisfies the premises also satisfies the conclusion, the same can be said for a syntactic derivation (i.e. proofs that are just string manipulation). The converse of this statement is called soundness: that every syntactic derivation is also semantically valid. Kurt Gödel was the first to show completeness of classical first-order logic, which is used in modern mathematics today. The principle of explosion can be expressed both semantically and syntactically; you gave the semantic argument, while the syntactic argument (in classical prop. logic) goes something like:
1. P and not P
2. P (by 1)
3. not P (by 1)
4. P or A (by 2, disjunction intro.)
5. A (by 3 and 4, disjunction elim.)
feel like youd add an extra line "not P or A" and then come to the final conclusion but its probably redundant, idrk though
@@badabing3391 one of the rules of inference in propositional logic is "P or A, not P |- A"
If everyone decided that T was F and F was T, or that AND was NOT and NOT was AND,
Then logic would continue to work just fine!
Ultimately, logic is a kind of protocol which is required to communicate.
The laws were established when we agreed that T meant T, and F meant F, and that we should be consistent with our statements.
I think you mean AND and OR. If you have quantifiers, you also have to swap "for all" and "there exists" as well.
@@sinx2247 You can swap AND with a picture of a banana, and logic still makes sense.
As long as you're consistent, and we established common meaning beforehand.
@ywtcc
Well, well now.
That seems logical.
I'll go with that.
@sinx2247
That's it.
Keep the FUD going.
Good game, Good game.
@@naijagoatfarmer what are you on about bruh😭
Logic comes from observation, it is the ultimate hypothesis basically.
That's how it comes. Why does it work?
@@amAntidisestablishmentarianist because we have senses
Can anything that exists have contradictory properties? If the answer is no, then logic is a natural consequence. If yes, then anything could be true and reason is impotent. Anything that could exist must cohere. Anything that is incoherent is the same as not existing.
Or you might be committing a false dichotomy because you simply lack the information to explain otherwise. Like there might be a third case where all these problems are resolved.
@@Jackson_Zheng if you understood what you are saying is that there can be square-circles and there not be self defeating "anything could be true." Sorry, but no. That is a contradiction inside another contradiction. All you done is reinforce the true dichotomy.
i mean people can believe contradictory things, and act on them, so kinda? What would an object with contradictory properties actually entail? Why couldnt I just refactor my model of reality to include that contradiction such that my new model isnt contradictory? We ultimately have to describe something as contradictory or not after all, so this is fundamentally tied to our ability to describe things.
I can imagine a surface in my mind that is red and green all over at the same time.
@@horsymandias-ur Yes, you "imagine" even though I doubt you actually are but least just say you are. So what? Does that exist in reality?
Logic is just statements of destinction and implications that are reliable and consistent. Like the rules of chess veing the same tomorrow as today if you act them out. But there is a question of where the practice of logic comes from and what generates the activity and definitions there in practice, since this is the only kind of logic we ever encounter. And the answer is the physical world or the world that exists, it cannot "come" from somewhere else, and so the degree to which our logic is sound, or applicable or self consistent is a question about what happens in the world when we invent or use, or appeal to logic. And since we are asking this question from within this physics or whateverelsical existence, we cannot ever close that circle formally. Logic is an uncontrolled and unsupervised reasoning process we don't audit as we go, giving rise to sharp destinctions and rules we attempt to follow and to formalize in a constant way. So the question of what is logic as we encounter it is a question a question existence and the form of existence, good luck closing that circle it is impossibru to give a definite answer.
My intuition is that logical laws are like physical laws in that they're both just descriptions of reality that are sufficiently ubiquitous, in our experience, to seem inviolate.
Gauss's Law wasn't prescribed; it's just a description of how magnetic flux seems to work whenever we look at it. Noncontradiction wasn't prescribed; it's just a reflection on the reality that nobody ever sees A and not-A concurrently in the same context.
So the laws of logic live in an immaterial realty?
@@Knightfall21 Not sure what you mean by "living in an immaterial reality." Is that the same as being an abstraction?
@@shassett79 I mean, what is the essence of logic and what domain does it exist in? If you think it's an abstraction, what is it an abstraction of?
@@Knightfall21 I don't follow. When I refer to things as "abstract" what I mean to say is that they only exist metaphysically.
@@shassett79 Ok, let's try another tact. Is logic real? Does it have descriptive or predictive power?
Please recommend more British people who are smart like these two.
My justification for using logic is that I don't know how to do otherwise. I can't know that it will always work in future but since it's always worked in the past, I have no idea how to prepare for its possible failure.
I mean practically that is the same with the Cogito. It is of course possible that our senses are deceiving us and the world doesn't really exist. Maybe we do live in a simulation. But there's not really a point to act as if it isn't. Because if our senses are deceiving us, there is no way in which we can ever know for sure either way. In the same way that if logic truly doesn't work, then it might be the case that we have no way of ever truly knowing if it works or not.
An illogical justification for using logic... Brilliant
@@catholicguy3605 well what kind of logic would justify logic without being circular? you need something outside of logic to justify it probably, but we have no non logical justification tools
@@Brenden-H God justifies logic.
@@catholicguy3605 no because what justifies God? God is self-justifying? How do you know logic isn't self-justifying by its nature?
i.e.: If logic is false, then logic is true. And if logic is true then it has to remain true by logic of self-consistency (i.e. X = X).
You can't just make up a solution with 0 evidence that only pushes the questions back to a layer were historically you'd be killed for asking questions further.
God as you know him doesn't exist for many reasons.
Celebrating the grounding of Spiritual truths is where the depths of humility and wisdom meet the heights of pride and ignorance.
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
This question, like all silly metaphysical questions, only makes sense if you first assume that humans use language to "correspond to the world." Without that assumption, you realize that someone who asks this question is betraying their lack of understanding of their own assumptions.
But for asking this question you are using human language itself
Well, humans do use some language (propositional language, that is) to “correspond to the world”. Even better: humans use THOUGHT to do so, and then language is just a tool to communicate it. Which is to say: Wittgenstein was an idiot, like OMG how stupid his pseudo-philosophy was!
@cirqueyeagerist5641 You can easily use language to critique using language for searching correspondent truths, if you use the same language just because it's useful. So you critique the way of using language, but not using language itself.
@@Michael-k8w7q your argument assumes that because you're using language to critique language, you can't critique language itself only its use. However, this is flawed because language is not just a neutral tool , it influences how we think and understand truth. By using language to critique its limitations, you're not contradicting yourself , just as you can use reasoning to critique flawed reasoning. Language can have structural biases or limitations, and recognizing those doesn’t invalidate the critique, even if you use language to express it.
@@cirqueyeagerist5641Talking about language's limitations is actually one of the ways to critique its using for some purposes, so there is no contradiction between mine words and your.
Logics are abstract generalizations of physical laws that help us map out scientific theories. They are analogous to map projections.
Math is a part of physical rules also.
@@chinchao Then do you find anything in the physical world that corresponds or resemble peano axioms?
Logic is simply a mathematical structure. It is not prior to mathematics in any form. A better question is where does mathematics come from. Brouwer's philosophy of intuitionism is probably the most coherent answer to that question, independently of whether you endorse his rejection of excluded middle.
I’d say both logic and mathematics are a byproducts of our universe’s tendency to obey cause and effect. We can only math we’re fairly sure incrementing an integer by one always results in the following integer.
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees a little bit. There are lowercase ‘L’ logics, like the classical and non-classical, that you could call mathematical structures. Then there is capital ‘L’, Logic, which is an umbrella term encompassing our meta conversation about logics. Where Logic comes from is more of a question of why is our world coherently structured. Because if you have some kind of coherent structure, tautologically, there will exist some “logic” that describes it. Brower’s intuitionism just begs the question of why are minds even capable of constructing any logics
@@TheBigWazowski I think you're just equivocating. There are mathematical structures which are logics and then there is our imposition of these mathematical structures onto the world. All of a sudden, validity becomes this normative thing, rather than a purely mathematical definition. But a valid argument has no actual relationship to the world. A valid instance of modus ponens does not cause anything to be the case. It's merely a description of the form of the argument. Logic bears no substantial relationship with natural language either. The value of classical logic is found in its capacity to be used in classical mathematics. But the question of "what follows from what" is meaningless without a domain to which it refers, and the "world as such" is not a domain.
@@IndustrialMilitiaI don’t really disagree with anything you’re saying, but I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. I’m just reiterating what was said in the video from 1:45-2:12. If you think that’s equivocating, then okay… I never suggested that a logical implication generates reality. The question is why does reality have enough structure for us to apply logics to it. Brower’s intuitionism does not answer this question
Logic is prior to mathematics. Mathematics is logic applied given certain axioms.
I like his point that we use the laws of logic to analyse the laws of logic. This implies there must have been some Nash equilibrium formed in the game between the dynamics of the outer world and the dynamics of the inner world, to get to a 'reasonable logic' out of all the logics that can analyse both itself and the outer world.
My opinion this equillibrium is found and based on the pauli exclusion principle, that is something maybe a mix from both our genetic past as bacteria, and our observational past as animal observers, combined. It creates for us the physical concept of law of non contradiction, and from this the other laws followed imo
Logics are formal languages and we can use them to express thoughts and reasons, just like with natural languages like English. The laws of logic describe how we can syntactically alter sentences to simulate a process of reasoning. I don't think we have to make it more complicated than this.
where does language come from ?
@@planteruines5619 People invented it to convey meaning when their brains had evolved sufficiently to require communication.
@@El_Bruno7510 how can a brain pass from electric signal to concept , first of all , second of all , since Logic is identity , how can a brain be before building Logic ?
@@planteruines5619 Easy. Evolution. Prove logic is identity. Logic is invented by an evolved brain to explain certain concepts. Logic comes AFTER evolved brains.
Explain how your god is not incoherent.
@@El_Bruno7510 Logic (the classic) has a law called identity , in which it is said that when something is , it is , contradiction comes from two identities being incompatible (like you and me , we are not the same ) , and no , Logic doesn't come from our mind (since the brain isn't even the center of consciousness but the main piece of the circuitry ) since it pre exists it (otherwise , contradiction ) , thirdly , evolution is not a debunk except maybe for the protestant fundamentalist , and lastly my God is cohérent because logic is coherent and God = Logic
Logic is how we deal with or make sense of, see the relationship inherent in the realm of multiplicity, or interdepending distinctions
No, it isn't. ;-)
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
I'd reason that logic is an inherant property of any plane of existence where the property of cause and effect exists.
How do you justify your claim?🤔
That's not a reason, that's an assumption.
@@Knightfall21 Justification is scarce these days
@@keitumetsemodipa3012
By using logic? 😂
@@Drkwll How do you justify logic?
Bro’s doing philosophical side quests at this point
Ashton Kutchers smart brother?
That's what I needed in my life - More Alex O'Connor..!
/s
Finally some British people on my RUclips, thank goodness!!!
I think a lot of questions like this one can be traced back to framing it in the wrong way. Not every concept that we can talk about "comes from" something in the way that heat comes from fire.
Logic, like science, isn't about building a perfect answer, but rather about following the evidence and engaging with scrutiny. We are the apex predator of a world built on the suffering and survival of millions of years of life forms, and we have relatively recently developed communication with each other. It's perfectly reasonable to accept the idea that our understanding of logic is incomplete while still endeavoring to expand our understanding of it
Yeah but that opens up another box of questions. Mainly: why does the universe seem to hold any logical structure at all. What does this say about the reality of logical rules
how can you even use empirical reason towards logic when you need to adhere to logic in order to have that empirical reasoning
@@planteruines5619 Wrong. You need empirical reasoning to reason to logic and you get empirical reasoning by empiricism. That is grounded in materialism.
@@El_Bruno7510 nah logic is présupposed to do empiricist mesurmement , you can use empiric data to fuel a logical argument however, but not the logical structure itself
@@planteruines5619 Wrong. Your god is presupposed to be the giver of logic. Which is absolutely laughable. You demonstrably need empirical data to prove logic. Prove otherwise.
Logic or inference is based on our concept of cause and effect. An infant must understand A=A, and that 'A' has object permance to be capable of forming expectations or inferences.
I was very surprised by the tired old misrepresentation of theism. (At least classic Christian theism). It's a classic false dichotomy of God being either arbitrary or else governed by abstract universals. Instead, God's nature is the source and foundation of fundamental aspects of reality, such as logic, goodness, beauty. Consequently, God would not do otherwise, but also simultaneously is not constrained by any of them.
Is God constrained by his nature?
How can something be constrained by something that is boundless? 😅❤😂✌️
@@nicholaslogan5185 are you answering me? As I know God's nature is very specific, it's not "everything", so it's not boundless
@@АртурИванов-ч9э you know God's nature? That's a great claim. I'm happy for you 😊
@@nicholaslogan5185 if we talking about God in classical theism it's definitely not boundless. And it's not a great claim, you can check it out for yourself. But if you're talking about another kind of God it can be anything you like, of course.
The avoidance of contradiction confers evolutionary benefits. These benefits give rise to a drive to avoid contradiction. The drive to avoid contradiction is captured by the Law of Non-Contradiction. The Law of Non-Contradiction is encapsulated by the Sheffer Stroke operation. The Sheffer Stroke can be successively applied to derive of all other operations of classical logic. Logic is the systematic avoidance of contradiction.
Laws of Logic are perhaps like the Laws of Physics. We don't create them. We discover them. We discover gravity by watching things "fall". We discover the law of identity by seeing things being exclusively identified.
Huh, no. We definitely create the laws of logic. Student in Master in Logic and Computation here.
A lot of classical logic feels so obvious as to be baked into the real world to people, but some of it is very much not; also, it's far from the only logic we've invented. Many logics are created to make sense of the world: for example, default logic is an attempt at making inferences in the absence of information, motivated by the fact that people infer some things by default.
All sorts of logics do all sorts of things, and are appropriate for different applications... It's a bit like having multiple tools you can use to fix a car.
@@momom6197 "Create" - ex nihilo - to bring into existence. So you claim humans make up the Laws of Logic out of thin air? Well actually not even thin air because that would be out of something. Rather than adherence to known identifiable processes? Aristotle made up Excluded Middle from whole cloth?
To determine whether logic is discovered or created is as absurd as determining whether god exists or not.
To determine something, you need knowledge and truth.
Logic relies on presuppositions, presuppositions cannot be known and therefore cannot be known to be true.
Philosophy is about reasoning from tautologies, which is an impossible task for a human. This is the "strongest" intuition.
The answer to every philosophical question is that you don’t know, because you have no reasonable knowledge/proof. You have beliefs and emotions, those are not reasonable.
@@kasuo7039 To posit a god's existence is the absurdity! If this confuses you. So will any attempt at logic. Knowledge/ proof? I think... therefore... But this seems to also confuse you.
@@kasuo7039 interesting, so you don't know that "The answer to every philosophical question is that you don’t know, because you have no reasonable knowledge/proof" because you have no reasonable knowledge or proof, only beliefs and emotions...
Such an interesting concept; it appears to me that no matter how you examine logic (theistically or not), it becomes inevitably self-explanatory whereby some primitive or "base-case" logic is required to ground the rest of logic.
This is why I'm doing a phd in math (and what I remind myself when I feel like I shouldn't). I just find this sort of thing super trippy and cool. I don't necessarily do logic (at least not yet), but I do enjoy getting to interact with the part of reality that fascinates me most on a daily basis.
if you haven't already you should try learning computer science from the ground up. like logic gates and circuits and stuff. Its supper fascinating and you can physically see the manifestation of logic within the universe physically build on itself to create a more complex structure.
@@Brenden-H That sounds super awesome! I've been wanting to that for a while now
This would be a good topic on which to debate Jay Dyer
There’s a difference between validity and soundness of an argument
It comes from the law of identity and its corollary, the law of non contradiction. Things are what they are. And it works so well because we’re right, things actually are what they are.
I would say, from the theistic point of view, this problem mirrors the euthyphro dilemma and solution.
*- "Is something good because God says it’s good, or because it is good?"*
*- "Is the world logical because God made it logical, or because it is logical?"*
This dilemma suggests that either goodness/logic are arbitrary or that they are independent of God, both being logically inconsistent.
The solution to both is that goodness/logic is inherent in God and comes from his very nature, not because of an arbitrary decision nor because they are independent of God and thereby God is subject to them.
Isn’t it more likely they it derivative of the capacity of thought we have? Maybe as a set of rules that “ought” to be followed when engaging in logical thinking. Almost like a projection of our thoughts on to material reality. We can never escape the confines of our minds.
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
Professor Susan hack pretty much put the nail in the coffin on logic no? I’m talking about her paper on the problem of deduction. Does anyone know if there have been recent developments since then?
"Why is the world not chaos and darkness" is answered basically by the fact that physics is tuned for us to exist. Our neurons and languages are structured such that we can infer the nature of platonic ideals from our environment using biological capabilities. These ideals are encoded into your brain by connecting neural synapses, and those synapses and networks are capable of performing operations like XOR, OR, AND, and NAND. This biological basis underlying humans ability to compute and think is founded on it's physical basis. Biology is based on chemisty. Chemistry is based on physics. Physics corresponds to math, Math logic.
The actual rules are simply relationships which remain invariant. You encounter a situation where the rules work, and they don't change, so you then learn them by exposure. The environment encodes a noisy version of the rules, and your brain converges onto that simplified relationship, removing the noise.
If Physics were different, we might not be able to do this.We might not even exist. God is tricky, because, well, he's not well-defined, by definition. He's intentionally inscrutable and unquestionable.
Basically, we're a bit like those videos where somebody makes a computer in Minecraft. Our brain is the simulated computer built in the Minecraft game, physics is the Minecraft world written in Java, and Logic or God is the computer everything runs on, ensuring the world is sensible, rather than chaos and darkness.
Y’all would appreciate the epistemology behind statistics/probability/possibility, and information theory.
Just to spinn off that thought about quantum logic there, logic starts becomming a compound concept. First there is the fact that particles or whatnot can be described in a more chaotic way, which is then what the new laws of logic are based on, but there is also the asumption that the description of, or the laying out of the new type of rules has some order to it. In other words even a desciption of chaos has some logic in it, but it might be a more, from our understanding, fragmented type of logic.
Very good talk.
Simple. Logic is invented by human beings. That is why different human beings use different logic. There are some clues that other animals have logic too. Logical thinking is a product of human evolution.
Just read "Origin of the Logical", aphorism 111 from Nietzsche's "The Joyful Wisdom". It just begins like this: "Where has logic originated in men's heads? Undoubtedly out of the illogical".
That (4:52) is my new favourite quote XD
"It's like I always say... Whatever man."
@8:30 I didn't see the test. I only heard of it. And I don't even know if it was a legend or if it actually happened. But IIRC the experiment conditioned rats to where a buzzer went off a short while before the floor shocked their feet. And the rats could, by pressing a lever, not only deactivate the shock that would happen, but also receive a food pellet -- presumably an enjoyable food pellet. Nothing really surprising there. But after conditioning the rats this way, the 'scientists' took the food pellet reward out of the equation. And the rats continued to press the lever to remove the negative stimulus (the electrified cage floor). Not really surprising. It's an association. The surprising part came when they shocked the rats even if the rats pressed the lever. Those rats did basically just cower in their cages unable to process reality any further. It's horrifying to imagine doing this to any animal.
If everything exists unless something prevents it from existing, and the only thing which would prevent something from existing is the non-contradiction principle (which is the only thing I see which does), then the non contradiction principle would exist, because nothing wouldn't exist until it does.
You are confusing material objects with concepts invented by material objects.
And you entire premise is that the default position is that things only exist because there is nothing preventing them from existing. That is bizarre!
The laws of logic come from nature. Natural laws allow us to make definitions and logical updates.
There are laws that don't allow that.
If we assume the natural laws, then it comes from the definition.
From definitions flow the laws of logic for deterministic things. For probabilistic things we have a different toolkit: statistics and inference. One may argue all is deterministic it's just that we can't calculate it all and so probability is our coping mechanism and that's fair if quantum mechanics Uncertainty is shown later to be incorrect.
Christianity's answer to "can God create a rock so big He can't move it" is "yes and He did" as Christ, who became a man and died on a cross. The question is based upon whether or not an omnipotent being could limit himself. Of course, why not? If limited beings can, of course an unlimited one could.
I've never heard Alex say, "whatever man".
10:01
The thing is, God does not do stuff that violates the aspect of Who God is. God isn’t bounded by logic, how we approach God is.
Ah, another comment. Logic could be grounded in the nature of God, just as goodness is grounded in the nature of God. God doesn't just do good things, he is good, in fact he is Goodness. You could probably do something like that with logic too, but i won't try. Maybe you could argue that logic is the way it is, because God is the way he is.
Like all things in maths, the laws of logic come from the axioms we agree on.
We get our understanding of logic from our experience of spacetime where time is a function of space.
That leads to quantum mechanics, actually. ;-)
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
When he starts talking about a question being interesting; I turned it off; because that was the peak of information exchanged between these two
I think it's just a lot simpler than that. My view is to simply take the scientific perspective and believe that we are simply takinga guess - a random shot in the dark - but it just so happens to be directed by evolution and the laws of physics. So there is a small probability that the basic rules of logic is wrong or incomplete, and there is a possibility of a contradiction somewhere in the universe, but it is so obscure that we have not found it as of yet. So in essence, logic is good enough tool to use until we find evidence of contradictions in the natural world.
No, I think that it's rather: from non-contradiction derives something.
7:00 Reminds me of vacuously true arguments in mathematics
Are there vacuously false statements as well?
@@aviciistsn77 um kinda. Any statement follows if something is vacuosuly true. So you can just make the negation statement if you wish.
@aviciistsn77 as an edit, it just follows from the truth table for p --> q. If p is false then q can be anything and the statement is true
Like … the empty set as a vector space has a basis? Lol
@ClumpypooCP ah I see what you mean. I guess vacously yes
What is the true nature of reality is complete infinite randomness we are in a bit of randomness that happens to be incredibly well-ordered as if it’s not random.
This is what we need to change, instead of talking about the same thing over and over let’s use our intelligence to create! 🤦🏻♂️
The laws of logic are given great weight by the mathematics that we have been able to do with it, and the trend with modern mathematics is that physics seems to connect to many of these concepts and structures. Obviously we still have problems, and mathematicians still disagree about foundations but its a more immediate practical question even for the few I've spoken to, the logic and axioms bear fruit and so they use it, for now
Basically, do you agree or disagree with certain logical foundations and set theoretic / categorical formulations, and if you disagree do you understand everything else that you're disagreeing with?
11:35 This is the Euthyphro Dilemma but applied to logic. God doesn't will logic; He is logic itself.
Using the wee analogy of the sun emitting light can be a helpful way to illustrate the concept that God is logic itself rather than merely willing logic into existence. In this wee analogy:
Inherent Nature: The sun emits light not because it chooses to, but because emitting light is an inherent aspect of its nature. It's what the sun is.
God as Logic: Likewise, God doesn't decide to conform to logic or create logical laws; rather, He is logic itself. Logic emanates from God just as light emanates from the sun.
The analogy demonstrates that logic is not external to God or subject to His will but is an essential attribute of His very being. Just as the sun cannot be separated from the light it emits, God cannot be separated from logic.
In your analogy God is the sun, and in mine God is the legislator, which means he creates laws. Does the analogy imply reality? Can you demonstrate the truth of your thoughts?
Ps. the sun is not light, light is a derivative of the sun.
@@АртурИванов-ч9э God, being an eternal and uncreated entity, implies that the laws He establishes are also uncreated and exist outside of time and creation. In contrast, a human legislator is a finite, created being whose laws are products of temporal existence. This creates a potential category error in the analogy between God and a legislator. That said, I'll provide a more detailed response later, as I'm currently occupied with work.
Created of course, go outside and try to find one single pure triangle or circle, you don" t find one.
" 'Truth' is a kind of lie without which a certain species could not endure life!" - Nietzsche
Christians normally ground logic in God by saying that logic is a reflection of God’s nature. This is different from saying that God created the laws of logic. From the Christian pov, God is the source of truth (John 14:6, Col 2:3) and as a result logical principles which helps discern truth from wrong must be a reflection of God’s unchanging and perfect nature.
And divine simplicity exploded in God’s face
@@realLsf How does this contradict divine simplicity?
Can God change his nature? Or is God's nature > God? And by the way, does it mean that not only truth follows from God's nature, but also logical contradictions, the falsity of something?
@@АртурИванов-ч9э God is immutable. Immutability is a God-making attribute. So that by definition, God does not change. So the first two questions are invalid.
I don’t know how it follows from what I said that logical contradictions follows from God’s nature.
From the observation that knowledge is hierarchical.
If an animal brain recognizes that "if there's a predator then i have three options".
To simplify. Then given that those phenomena work that way. We recognize these aspects in reality and then conceptualize it.
In this case it's nature following a logical structure
Shocking... two English people having s discussion in England 🇬🇧
For the curious: The law of bivalence says that any proposition *can* only be true or false, while the law of the excluded middle says that anything *has* to be either true or false.
But what’s the difference between ‘can only’ and ‘must’?
It’s just like I was thinking about my bio test: how can you be tested on something that is based on the most “proven” and accepted theories and where nothing is considered “fact”.
I have thought about this too and I think religous people can probably say that god itself is logic. same way he is love itself. I think that would work for them. So he cannot lift an unliftable stone which he made for the same reason he cannot commit evil. its against his nature.
I am also no Quantum physicist, so this is probably wrong for some reason that would be incredibly obvious to someone who is, but to me it seems that a wave is the definitional opposite of a particle, therefore something in reality cannot both be a particle and simultaneously be a wave ( a not particle), because of the law of noncontradiction. However in reality, it seems that this is the case almost all the time everywhere, where things are behaving both as particles and as waves simultaneously, which seems to violate the law of noncontradiction. I wonder if anyone can help me correct this
In my understanding, wave-particle duality is an observation from classical physics in which things seem to have wave-like properties in one set of circumstances and particle-like properties in another set of circumstances. It wasn't meant to say that the thing _is_ both a wave and a particle, simultaneously.
In quantum physics, they talk about "quanta," which are conceptual particles whose existence is statistical in nature and described by a "wave function."
I think a lot of confusion comes from the way subject matter experts reuse terms between quantum and classical physics.
the problem is in the language. "particles" are neither. They are something else! WE dont have a word for it, they tried "wavicle", but it didnt work. The current term is "quantum object".
The laws of logic exist because the universe needs to be free of contradictions and paradoxes or it could not exist. Ultimately, this points back to a designer and a creator. This is easy to understand, as chaos is much easier to exist than order. Hence, the universe should be inherently chaotic, but the fact that it is not speaks volumes as it strongly implies a will.
This. Crazy they cannot see this answer. You cannot have order without logic.
@@rujotheone We find logic in order. The 'logic' comes from the type of order we find. Logic is descriptive. A could continue in a line and be called ordered. A could zig zag uniformly and be called ordered. A could move under and number of uniform sequences and be called ordered. The logic we find to describe A's movements would be different each time and would not be in place prior to the order A appears to follow.
What evidence do you have to say that the universe should be inherently chaotic? Who is to say that chaos is the default state for anything?
@@El_Bruno7510 umm. The second law of thermodynamics. Look it up.
@@El_Bruno7510 the second law of thermodynamics. Hence it's always been easier to destroy than it is to create.
The laws of logic come from humans.
When people usually mention 'laws of logic' they are using a subset of laws of a subset of all logics.
We can 'rule out' some types of logics by virtue of the fact that they seem inconsistent with our observations (like all x are not x) -- so stuff like the paraconsistent logics are excluded from our possible logic sets.
Alex is probably like Nikacado Avocado tricking us into thinking that he's crazy for not shaving that moustache but actually it's long gone and all this time he was two steps ahead of us.... Let that sink in
Without logic logic wouldn't matter, logically speaking .
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
Is this an argument for the importance of logical reasoning over emotional or irrational conclusions .
Is logical reasoning prioritised because of the outcome ?
Is logic natural and immutable ?
If quantum mechanics follow different laws of logic then we're used to then why does math still predict it?
Might not be articulated well but think about it. Math is just a very quantitative form of logic so it seem like a valid question.
The most fascinating thing about this video and the comment section is the low amount of Likes. Its like the concepts themselves are so intriguing, people are spending more time pondering and self reflecting. It's oddly reassuring.
I love you guys.
Christian apologetics for the living logic as logos is the most suffistcated outcome for our reasoning on the pounderance of the source.
Logic is the source of all things like code. Yahweh, brahma.
I call it the "all no-thing"
Why does no one talk about logic being only achievable because we interface with a phonetic alphabet? A place for everything and everything in its place. It’s a visual/spatial metaphor like our notions of time.
I don't understand why you say there is a problem for theism as well.
In theism God is the source of logic, meaning logic is the way the mind of God functions. Since God is eternal, there is no PRIOR to logic, it was always functioning like this, and GOD cannot change His nature, it's not like He can change the logic and contradict Himself, it would literally mean for Him to change His nature, but God fundamentally is not changeable in His nature, because whatever is changeable is corruptible (as Augustin puts it), and Him being perfect, should be unchangeable in His nature.
Either I didn't understood well, or you see the source of logic differently in theism, but personally I don't see any problem of grounding it.
thanks for the nice discussion!
The highest and most prior form of logic is that of identity. It is the only truly fundamental logic, and for the theist God is the identity of identity.
Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't,
It ain't.
- Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum
his real name is Sir Robert Bryson Hall II, he came from Rockville, Maryland
One o these guys forgot their teddy bear.
God is called Logos in the book of John, the word Logic comes from the word Logos.
That SO smart!
Logos means logic. Logos comes from the concept of logic.
@FVLMEN Logos means "reason", "speech", "word". It is often used in philosophical and theological contexts to refer to the fundamental order of reasoning which governs the universe.
Logos is an older word it's date back to the pre-socratic philosophers.
Thr Greek word logic is logikē and it refers to the systematic study of reasoning, particularly formal and structured reasoning processes.
Logic is developed later particularly by aristotle.
Logic comes from the concept of Logos.
Other species percieve things differently from us. Do they also perceive metaphysics differently from us? Do they have different laws of logic that make sense to them but not us? Do higher dimensional beings have different perception of logic?
I think the laws of logic are linguistic (in that has to do with languages). Logic is more like a construction of the most rigorous possible language. When we say both:
"A"
and
"A implies B"
then "B"
This argument is valid only because that is literally what the word "implies" even means in the first place.
Or take the law of excluded middle and contrast a logical language to a less rigorous language like English. I can say "This cup has no water in it and this cup has water in it." Well, what if the cup is full of snow which is made of H2O? Does that count as water? It depends on precisely what we mean by "water"
That's why I think logic is more about finding/making a rigorous language than anything else.
Aren’t you sidestepping the question though? I mean you are right that logic, as we use it, is a linguistic construct. But my interpretation of the real question here is, how come the world coheres with logic? How come that it’s possible to construct any empirically valid logic at all. Why does the world appear to be bound by pattern and number and law?
@@johannesrehnstrom1058 But like, what would it even look like for the world to not be blind by numbers? I have trouble even imagining such a world because every time I try, I can find some way to apply numbers to that conception.
I could maybe imagine a world without patterns, but that's a separate question than whether logic exists.
Also, I'm not sure what I am sidestepping "construction of the most rigorous language" is my attention answer of the question: "where does logic come from"
@@PiRobot314 First let me say I'm sorry. Accusing you of avoiding the question was combative and uncalled for. What I rather should say is that the question of where logic comes from has several dimensions, and some of them are to my mind more important.
I think your answer is a good explanation for the process by which humans grasp logic. But there is a metaphysical dimension which is yet unanswered; How come there is logic "in the world". How come nature acts according to fixed laws? How come mathematics; which existsinly in the human mind, is so apt at describing the actions of nature?
I have no clue what it would look like for the world to not be bound by the principles of math. But there is a deep mystery here. Because math seems to be entirely un-caused by the laws of nature. I can't imagine that 1+1 would become anything other than 2, even if some law of nature was different, for example. Math seems to be independent if natural laws, but natural laws don't seem to be independent of math. Put in terms of causation, it appears that the laws of numbers are not caused by the laws of nature, but the laws of nature are somehow, at least in part, caused by the laws of numbers. How is that possible!?
Summarized in a sentence: Logic appears to be more profound than a mere construction of human language, as indeed it appears to be more profound than the existence of the universe. How do we account for that?
@@johannesrehnstrom1058 Okay, I think I see what you are saying more now. No problem, There are lots of different but closely related questions here. When I talked about having answered the question, I was talking about the literal: "where does logic come from?" question. But there are many other important questions which are related but not exactly the same.
Questions like, "How come nature abides by fixed laws?" And "How are we able to use mathematics to describe nature?" Ultimately, I don't know the answers to these fascinating questions.
One thing that might be the start of an answer is that I think we are actively trying to describe the universe with mathematics and building theories about how matter interacts.
I don't think any of our current mathematical understandings are 100% accurate either. Like, for instance, Newton described equations for gravity, which was a mathematical description of the universe. We now know that although those equations are close to reality, the equations of general relativity are even closer to reality, though still not perfect. I'm sure that at some point, that theory will be replaced by an even more accurate one.
My intuition says the laws of logic are just a hard fact, there is no other way things could be.
Perhaps logic is the filter through which the mind apprehends the world, and therefore it impossible to observe or comprehend the illogical. If logic IS the machinery of human perception, that would explain both why humans can reason, and why the world appears to have logic in it.
… but if so, the challenge is to explain why humans tend to accept fallacies 🤔
this view would ruin our epistemology, it would mean that we can't see the true world !
@@planteruines5619 You've been busy trolling this YT with your nonsense I see!
@@planteruines5619 Yes that is precisely what it would mean; That man is not capable of knowing the world as it is, but only of knowing it as it appears to us. And being inconvenienced by the implication, doesn't make it false.
I wonder, is there reason to believe that we can know the world as it is, that the senses reveal the world to us in its fullness?
@@El_Bruno7510 i'm here to destroy the psyche of some
@@johannesrehnstrom1058 i mean , there would be nothing since being and non-being would be , well , we can't even say identical since it would instaure once again Logic , truth would be so out of hand it would not exist and exist and exist and not exist , well , adhering to this position and pushing it to it's application would mean that you would not even be able to talk through this comment section
Logic is a map/representation of reality but it is not the terrain. If we look at the current increase in scientists positing a sort of quantum monism or even ancient traditions we get a sense that reality is an underlying one (call it whatever you want) that is manifesting as distinctness/objects/representations. “Idolatry” can be thought of as mistaking the representations of underlying ultimate reality as the ultimately reality itself.
Physicists are realizing from multiple lines of investigation that spacetime (distinctness) is likely a sort of emergent illusion.
As as the self organizing, self sustaining information pattern we call life arises out of this soup of oneness then it begins shaping its perception as one of distinct self and world of objects. This separation undergirds the sense that our world is made of distinct objects. Multiple modes of inquiry from the scientific to spiritual seem to be pointing to this.
Specifically as apes with thumbs 4E cog sci shows our intuitions and conceptual worlds are built ground up from more basal embodied ones. Our impulse to grasp things with our hands applies to our perceptual & conceptual world so we even more saliently reify a world of discrete objects and lay that on top of reality like a map. This is kinda don hoffmans idea I believe with a world of useful interface “icons”. The code underneath your desktop trash can bears little resemblance to a trash can but it’s a useful representation to operate. Our perceptual reality is like this. Fundamental reality is likely much more nebulous and non-discrete. Logic is one powerful way to navigate this reality. Like a coordinate grid. But if things are fundamentally entangled with each other then to parse them into dualistic an and b entities distorts their true nature. I am you and not you. The boundaries between us are ill defined, permeable, and mutually co-create. Even in spacetime relativity position is only relative to some other position and with the 2022 Nobel discovery in quantum
Physics non-local reality also means properties themselves find their being in interaction and relationship to others. Our reality is dynamic and interwoven and logic provides a language to talk about it but does not capture it. Underneath it is the presumption of distinct entities. Even what I’ve thus described only asymptotically describes the reality I’m pointing at.
God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.
Sounds like two students talking