On Nothing in a void.

[Hayden]

How would any space free from any object have an electromagnetic presence ?

Passing EM.
For EM presence, I do not think we need atoms in that space.

 

[Write4U]

There are no objects because objects have structure. The definition of a void as structureless is sufficient; being structureless means having nothing to identify or distinguish. One or more boundaries introduce structure.

IMO, a void cannot be observed because it does not exist in time. It is an unobservable or non-experientially timeless condition, an abstract concept.

 

[Michael 345]

I got into a fight with gravity once...

Call me a pussy but I'm not looking for a rematch.

Gravity cheats

 

[arfa brane]

IMO, a void cannot be observed because it does not exist in time.

Nonetheless, there is a logic that says ( ) represents a boundary, the boundary of a void "space". Void is represented by one or more space characters.

The leap is to equate one or more bounded voids with one bounded void. This makes sense because you can say two blank spaces (pages) are the same as one blank space.

Or symbolically: ( ) ( ) = ( ). This suggests union.
The other equality, (( )) = , suggests intersection.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Qualia are supposed to be a concept of subjective experience.
According to Stanford:

Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia.

Good to me.

In other words,

???
What is it about the definition given by Stanford that you think we need you to rephrase it?

we can consider that qualia are symbolic,

???
Where does Stanford even suggest any symbolic value to qualia?
Some qualia have a symbolic value, some don't.

some kind of variable in a logical system (or rational system if you prefer).

???
Complete fiction.
We don't know whether qualia are in any way operational, i.e. causally effective. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.
We know any quale we experience at the moment we experience it, by definition. And that's all we know. So, we know nothing as to what may exist beside our qualia.
Nothing.

So does a slime mould subjectively experience its world, or what?

Logically vacuous question. Who would know outside the slime's own subjective experience if it had one? We obviously don't know if it has one.

But you said it's the only logic there is. Perhaps you should admit that.

???
Reread what I said. I said the only logic properly so-called is the logic of the human mind. I said Aristotle's method and system of formal logic is true of logic properly so-called. I accept it's incomplete and of limited value. I said all other systems I'm aware of are just wrong, because at least some aspects of them are wrong, at least to the extent that they be meant to represent the logic of the human mind. If they represent something else, I don't care, it's just yet another part of mathematics.
EB

 

[arfa brane]

I said all other systems I'm aware of are just wrong, because at least some aspects of them are wrong, at least to the extent that they be meant to represent the logic of the human mind.

You say apart from Aristotelean logic which you accept is incomplete, all others are wrong?

How are they wrong, can you give some examples of formal logic systems which aren't Aristotelean, but are wrong? If human minds can rationalise about different kinds of logic, how does that imply there is only one logic "of the mind"? That's a bit like saying you can only use one kind of computer language.

But we know much less about how the mind "operates" than we do about computers, and we know how to map lots of different kinds of logic (algebras) to computers and virtual machines. If there is only one mind-logic, how do you explain the fact there are multiple kinds of logic? Can you explain why 2-valued logic is so ubiquitous, or perhaps why we have digital computers, not analog computers?

Does logic require the existence of minds? Or for that matter, a universe with minds in it?

 

[Speakpigeon]

You say apart from Aristotelean logic which you accept is incomplete, all others are wrong?

To the extent that they are meant to represent the logic of the human mind. Prove to me that they are. I've looked for such assertion and couldn't find it. Maybe you had more luck than me but I would need a very explicit and unambiguous assertion coming from some recognised expert.

How are they wrong, can you give some examples of formal logic systems which aren't Aristotelean, but are wrong?

The kind of propositional logic presented in all basic textbooks all over the world. The method proposed by Frege and Russell. I don't think it was meant as a model of human logic. Again, if you think it was, provides quote from Frege or Russell or such luminaries.

If human minds can rationalise about different kinds of logic, how does that imply there is only one logic "of the mind"? That's a bit like saying you can only use one kind of computer language.

I'm not suggesting any "implication" here. It's just a brute fact that all the "logics" you are talking about are not true of our sense of logic. And most likely because they are not meant to be.
And again, we can't reason about anything without using our sense of logic, so whatever the "logics" you're talking about may be, the experts working with or on them have to use their own sense of logic. There's no difference here with mathematical theories and to me, I don't see the difference, except it's probably mostly applied mathematics.
The same theorem may apply to various technical fields. Similarly, our sense of logic applies and be useful to the conception and use of the various "logics" you're talking about. No wonder they seem to work. But you shouldn't confuse them with the logic of your own mind.

But we know much less about how the mind "operates" than we do about computers, and we know how to map lots of different kinds of logic (algebras) to computers and virtual machines. If there is only one mind-logic, how do you explain the fact there are multiple kinds of logic?

They're not logic properly so-called. They're just bits of applied mathematics that the specialists choose to call "logics". I already explained the difference.

Can you explain why 2-valued logic is so ubiquitous, or perhaps why we have digital computers, not analog computers?

Why do we have numbers? And words? I would think that for a particular category of problems this is optimal. Small brains, big world. Our brain was evolved in such a way as to be able to choose very carefully what to represent and how to represent it. Works quite well. Same for computers but on a much, much smaller footing. Computers would need to be logical like the human mind if they are to be as effective as it is in an open environment. Not quite there yet. Which is why you need to have people program them.

Does logic require the existence of minds? Or for that matter, a universe with minds in it?

I'm not sure about "minds" per se but, yes, logic comes from the principle of using a model to represent the world in an effective way. No model, no logic.
EB

 

[Write4U]

arfa brane said:
So does a slime mould subjectively experience its world, or what?

Logically vacuous question. Who would know outside the slime's own subjective experience if it had one? We obviously don't know if it has one.

By observing the actions slime molds or paramecia take in the course of their behaviors patterns.
We're not talking about bouncy balls but living motile organisms which feed and mate and respond to external sensory input.

 

[Write4U]

Speakpigeon said:
Logically vacuous question. Who would know outside the slime's own subjective experience if it had one? We obviously don't know if it has one.

What is the rationale behind the assumption that if it is not a human experience it does not exist in other forms in other organisms.
How do we know that a chimpanzee does experience and acts on qualia? Because it is a hominid?

How about a Lemur, who can recognize "more" from "less", i.e. perform calculus? Or Crows and Ravens. How about migrating birds which navigate by the earth's magnetic field or Whales and Dolphins who navigate and communicate by sonar?

Knowledge and use of these cognitive abilities does not constitute processing of qualia?
Just because Humans cannot do these things without the use of artificial processors?.....

 

[arfa brane]

To the extent that they are meant to represent the logic of the human mind. Prove to me that they are. I've looked for such assertion and couldn't find it. Maybe you had more luck than me but I would need a very explicit and unambiguous assertion coming from some recognised expert.

You say you need to see proof that any system of logic represents the logic of the human mind. The proof is that logical systems exist which are consistent, all of them are products of human reasoning. What better proof is needed?

Logic in and of itself is "only" logical. For instance, Boolean logic can be used to do arithmetic with binary numbers, but the underlying logic says nothing about what numbers "are", other than being logical objects (since you can determine when a number is less than, equal to, or greater than another number, i.e. a relational map exists). Then you quote an example of logic which is "wrong":

The kind of propositional logic presented in all basic textbooks all over the world. The method proposed by Frege and Russell. I don't think it was meant as a model of human logic.

But it is a model of human logic, it was developed by humans. It didn't come out of a cereal packet.

It's just a brute fact that all the "logics" you are talking about are not true of our sense of logic. And most likely because they are not meant to be.

"Not true of our sense of logic" (??). Then how is it possible we can use lots of (apparently) different kinds of logic, to reason things, to deduce etc? You're suggesting there is some kind of overarching "human logic of the mind". Well, maybe, but so far what we know about is that logical systems exist and we can reason with them. So how are these systems not "human logic"?

. . . our sense of logic applies and be useful to the conception and use of the various "logics" you're talking about. No wonder they seem to work. But you shouldn't confuse them with the logic of your own mind.

So "our sense" of logic applies when we conceive of a logical system, but we shouldn't confuse this with logic of "our own" mind?

That doesn't seem to be very helpful, in fact it looks confusing.

They're not logic properly so-called. They're just bits of applied mathematics that the specialists choose to call "logics". I already explained the difference.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "logic properly so-called". Logic is logic, it's logical. It can be defined in terms of manipulating symbols. There are always a priori assumptions. A properly (or well-) defined logical system is consistent, there is closure (very important), there is an algebra of symbols, the symbols are defined in terms of each other or in terms of axioms (e.g. a statement is either true or false, but not both). If a system of logic is not consistent, not well-defined, lacks any axioms or closure, it isn't really a system of logic but something else, like a mistake.

Besides, your denigration of "specialist logic" as "bits of applied mathematics" suggests you think you have some kind of superior point of view. You can claim you've explained this view, but you actually haven't. You've just been repeating a claim that appears to have no basis in fact.

In fact, the axiom that statements are true or false but not both, is assumed to be true, can logic ever prove it though? Why can't something be both true and false?

 

[Speakpigeon]

You say you need to see proof that any system of logic represents the logic of the human mind. The proof is that logical systems exist which are consistent, all of them are products of human reasoning. What better proof is needed?

No, I asked you to prove that they were meant to represent the logic of the human mind. I looked for a claim to that effect and couldn't find any.
Compare the situation in science. In science, it's very easy to find a justification of the scientific method. Scientists are only too happy to provide such a justification. Whether it's good enough is for each of us to decide for himself but we can't ignore that there is a justification. Apparently not in logic. If you think I'm wrong, I'll wait for you to provide a clear and unambiguous quote from some recognised expert in the field.

Logic in and of itself is "only" logical. For instance, Boolean logic can be used to do arithmetic with binary numbers, but the underlying logic says nothing about what numbers "are", other than being logical objects (since you can determine when a number is less than, equal to, or greater than another number, i.e. a relational map exists).

"Less than" isn't a logical relation. It's a mathematical one.

Then you quote an example of logic which is "wrong":

The kind of propositional logic presented in all basic textbooks all over the world. The method proposed by Frege and Russell. I don't think it was meant as a model of human logic.

But it is a model of human logic, it was developed by humans.

Where did its designers claimed it represented the logic of the human mind?

"Not true of our sense of logic" (??). Then how is it possible we can use lots of (apparently) different kinds of logic, to reason things, to deduce etc? You're suggesting there is some kind of overarching "human logic of the mind". Well, maybe, but so far what we know about is that logical systems exist and we can reason with them. So how are these systems not "human logic"?

Where did their designers claimed they represented the logic of the human mind?

So "our sense" of logic applies when we conceive of a logical system, but we shouldn't confuse this with logic of "our own" mind?

Our sense of logic can apply whatever we do and not all that we do using our sense of logic is a formal representation of the logic of the human mind. I may use my sense of logic to go from A to B but that isn't a formal representation of the logic of the human mind. People are free to devise formal systems, using their sense of logic to do so, without that these systems should be formal representations of the logic of the human mind. All of mathematics falls into that category, including what's called "mathematical logic".

Logic is logic, it's logical. It can be defined in terms of manipulating symbols. There are always a priori assumptions. A properly (or well-) defined logical system is consistent, there is closure (very important), there is an algebra of symbols, the symbols are defined in terms of each other or in terms of axioms (e.g. a statement is either true or false, but not both). If a system of logic is not consistent, not well-defined, lacks any axioms or closure, it isn't really a system of logic but something else, like a mistake.

My point is that whatever formal system is proposed as a formal representation of the logic of the human mind, we have to find a way to validate it on the basis of logic properly so-called. Science is about nature and the justification of scientific theories is that they are consistent with nature (whether that's true or not). Where is the justification for any formal system of logic? Who even claimed the formal system they had devised was a formal representation of logic properly so-called?

Besides, your denigration of "specialist logic" as "bits of applied mathematics" suggests you think you have some kind of superior point of view. You can claim you've explained this view, but you actually haven't. You've just been repeating a claim that appears to have no basis in fact.

Sorry, but that's all in your imagination. I'm just making the point that there doesn't seem to be any formal system of logic that has been justified properly and that I'm not aware that any is even claimed to be a formal representation of the logic of the human mind.

In fact, the axiom that statements are true or false but not both, is assumed to be true, can logic ever prove it though? Why can't something be both true and false?

Statements are understood as true or false. A statement is understood as true or false of some situation if it means something to us as saying something about reality. If the statement is neither true nor false, it just doesn't mean anything real to us and we just assume it's not a statement at all. What could it mean to claim that Trump is the current President of the United States of America and that he isn't? What could possibly be stated about reality in this case? Beats me. But you do as you please.
EB

 

[arfa brane]

"Less than" isn't a logical relation. It's a mathematical one.

What's the difference? Please explain.

Where did its designers claimed it represented the logic of the human mind?

They perhaps didn't have to, since, where else could it be "of"?

Our sense of logic can apply whatever we do and not all that we do using our sense of logic is a formal representation of the logic of the human mind. I may use my sense of logic to go from A to B but that isn't a formal representation of the logic of the human mind.

Stop making my eyes water.

People are free to devise formal systems, using their sense of logic to do so, without that these systems should be formal representations of the logic of the human mind. All of mathematics falls into that category, including what's called "mathematical logic".

Of course we're free to define any formal system we like, it doesn't even have to correspond to anything physical.
What do you think you mean by "the logic of the human mind"? All logic designed, concocted, derived etc has to be of the human mind. What does logic of the human mind stand for?

I mean, a neurologist could argue there's a blood and oxygen logic of the human mind, because a human mind requires a living human brain, and there is such a thing as supply and demand "logic".

 

[Speakpigeon]

What's the difference? Please explain.

What's the difference between colours and sounds?

They perhaps didn't have to, since, where else could it be "of"?

OK, so I have to take it you don't know of any proper justification, or any claim to such, for any formal system as a proper representation of the logic of the human mind. That's fine, I didn't expect you to have any.

Stop making my eyes water.Of course we're free to define any formal system we like, it doesn't even have to correspond to anything physical.
What do you think you mean by "the logic of the human mind"? All logic designed, concocted, derived etc has to be of the human mind. What does logic of the human mind stand for?
I mean, a neurologist could argue there's a blood and oxygen logic of the human mind, because a human mind requires a living human brain, and there is such a thing as supply and demand "logic".

OK, thanks for trying, but I guess we've run out of anything meaningful and useful to say.
Bye.
EB

 

[arfa brane]

I have this to say about your search for a formal system which is a proper representation of the logic of the human mind.

Your search is self-referential of course, all logic is like that. You state a tautology but perhaps don't realise it.

 

[Write4U]

I have this to say about your search for a formal system which is a proper representation of the logic of the human mind.

Perhaps Necessity and Sufficiency?

In logic, necessity and sufficiency are implicational relationships between statements.
The assertion that one statement is a necessary and sufficient condition of another means that the former statement is true if and only if the latter is true. That is, the two statements must be either simultaneously true or simultaneously false.
In ordinary English, "necessary" and "sufficient" indicate relations between conditions or states of affairs, not statements. Being a male sibling is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a brother.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

 

[Speakpigeon]

I have this to say about your search for a formal system which is a proper representation of the logic of the human mind.
Your search is self-referential of course, all logic is like that. You state a tautology but perhaps don't realise it.

Good point but everything the human mind does is inevitably self-referential, including science. That shouldn't stop you from using the Internet. We don't have to be confused about our epistemological priorities. We know our qualia and only that, but we believe in a material world where we can eat and drink. We also theorised a physical model of the material world, very impressive but not easy to understand and very hard to believe that it may be more than model. Logic, logic properly so-called, is a the heart of all this. There's nothing more fundamental except for qualia themselves. That's good enough, I think, that we should pay attention. But we're easily distracted, I guess.
Sufficient and/or necessary, yes. Each necessary, sufficient together.
EB

 

[arfa brane]

Good point but everything the human mind does is inevitably self-referential, including science.

Except that science is the study of things on the outside of the human mind.

So we might assume that theories we develop, find useful or not (in the sense they have a practical application, like optics say), are like an interface between the outside world and our minds. Of course this logic (of theories) is anthropocentric, what else could it be?

The strings I'm writing down (via a keyboard) are all symbols, called words. But words are composed of syllables, and syllables are composed of characters. English language is at least one symbolic language. Plenty of philosophers have been published in English.

That languages use written symbols is anthropocentric. The ability to abstract a thing in the outside world to a symbol might be unique to humans. Although some apes have been trained to communicate after learning words, it isn't a skill they keep. What that might say about a logic "of" the human mind I couldn't possibly.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Except that science is the study of things on the outside of the human mind.
So we might assume that theories we develop, find useful or not (in the sense they have a practical application, like optics say), are like an interface between the outside world and our minds. Of course this logic (of theories) is anthropocentric, what else could it be?

Science is meant to refer to a material world outside the mind but any model we have, we know it as a mental object. All we can do is believe there are things outside our mind and that our models are true of them.
Logic is just one more belief we have. However, it's not about this material world that we can only believe in, but about the models we have of it and we do know our models. So, logic is about something we know, whereas science is about something we don't know. This makes logic more fundamental than science as far as our epistemology is concerned. This is why it still makes sense to us to apply logic even to imaginary or purely abstract, and therefore unscientific, ideas, say like the idea of an infinite regress of causes that you couldn't prove scientifically but that you can accept as logically consistent.

The strings I'm writing down (via a keyboard) are all symbols, called words. But words are composed of syllables, and syllables are composed of characters. English language is at least one symbolic language. Plenty of philosophers have been published in English.
That languages use written symbols is anthropocentric. The ability to abstract a thing in the outside world to a symbol might be unique to humans. Although some apes have been trained to communicate after learning words, it isn't a skill they keep. What that might say about a logic "of" the human mind I couldn't possibly.

Logic is preverbal. I also think logic is a necessary capability for the child to start to build any model of its environment, and so logic has to come to the human mind even before that, so very early indeed after birth.
Language is merely an ability made possible among other necessary resources by our sense of logic. No logic, no language.
Formal logic only came first historically, as far as we know, with Aristotle, so in effect a long time after human beings first started to use complex languages and probably a very, very long time after the first human(s) could use their sense of logic to develop any language at all, or indeed anything like a precursor of language.
And then, the kind of formal logic you mistake for logic properly so-called only came at the end of the 19th century.
Still, I would agree that the idea of a "mathematical logic", as I think it should be called, was a conceptual step forward even if it's wrong as a model of the logic of the human mind. And maybe we can't do any better than that, but I really fail to see why that should be.
EB

 

[arfa brane]

And then, the kind of formal logic you mistake for logic properly so-called only came at the end of the 19th century.

But I don't make that mistake. I know what formal logic is, but have no real idea what "properly so-called" logic is. I'm waiting, not very hopefully, for someone to explain what it is, and if they don't I'll just get on with my life.

Still, I would agree that the idea of a "mathematical logic", as I think it should be called, was a conceptual step forward even if it's wrong as a model of the logic of the human mind.

You aren't the only one who thinks mathematical logic is a good name for the logic of numbers. What would a proof that a particular logic is wrong, look like? Would it be a logical proof or rely on something else?

What does it mean for a logic to be wrong anyway? Mathematical logic doesn't look like it has much wrong with it.

 

[Write4U]

What does it mean for a logic to be wrong anyway? Mathematical logic doesn't look like it has much wrong with it.

Don't we use mathematics to provide proofs of logical propositions?

IMO, an equation provides the logic in a statement of "necessity and sufficiency"