Because without logical consistency, NONE would be likely to be true!
When reality contradicts logic and reason
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
So the consistency of a theory would be a NECESSARY condition for truth, but not a SUFFICIENT condition for truth since ultimately the theory relies on the truth of its axioms for its truth?
That's assuming the model of truth according to which truth is a matter of an idea adequately representing reality.
That might be adequate for things like rocks or atoms, but other areas of human interests, those that are actually most important to humans, such as happiness, love, relationships, having a sense of right and wrong, a sense of worth - how would such a model of truth apply to those areas of human interest?
Quine addresses this with insight when he talks about the dogmas of empiricism.
His essay "The Two Dogmas of Empiricism" is one of the standard works on the topic.
I guess one just either reads it, or one doesn't ...
Correct!
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Sartre once observed: "Everything has been figured out except how to live our lives." This expresses the fundamental intuition, perhaps based on universal personal experience, that personal life issues don't really conform neatly to any system of logic. I think this is so since there are so many different variables at play from one person to the next. Some people are saddled more with past traumas or inherited drawbacks. Add to that variables of self-determination, unique environmental factors, and relationships with other equally individual people, and you quickly end up in a near chaotic situation defying all logical predicability. This isn't to say logic CAN'T help us in life. It's just that it doesn't seem to work as consistently there as it does in the fields of math and science.
Nagarjuna, a Buddhist, did make a lot of contribution to logic, which was finally developed by Nyaya School.
THis is from Jain Judgement Theory.
(1) S is P
(2) S is not P
(3) S is both P and not-P
(4) S is neither P nor not-P
It is actually not presented properly here and should be:
(1) Probably S is P
(2) Probably S is not P
(3) Probably S is both P and not-P
(4) Probably S is neither P nor not-P
Jain system holds that any logical inference is probable, but may or may not be true.
Example, one by one.
1. Probably electron is a particle
2. Probably electron is not a particle
3. Probably electron both a particle and a not-particle.
4. Probably electron is neither a particle nor a not-particle.
Probably itself is is an approximate translation of the term, which perhaps should be "Probably under certain conditions" or something like it. You can see all the above four statements can be true under certain conditions, but not simultaneously.
Take a piece of glass, say black. Now stare grinding it. The finer you grind, whiter it is. So what is its color?
Now heat the piece. AS the temperature rises, the color changes. So colou again depends on temperature too.
This more of quatum and relative logic.
***
In passing.
Indian logic from an ancient book of Nyaya Sutra.
That hill has fire. [to be proved]
Because it has smoke [reason of proof of fire]
Everything that has smoke has fire too for example kitchen hearth[ inductive example]
That hill too has smoke[direct observation]
Therefore the hill has fire. [inference]
It does not prove that a non smoky hill is non fiery too.
THis is from Jain Judgement Theory.
(1) S is P
(2) S is not P
(3) S is both P and not-P
(4) S is neither P nor not-P
It is actually not presented properly here and should be:
(1) Probably S is P
(2) Probably S is not P
(3) Probably S is both P and not-P
(4) Probably S is neither P nor not-P
Jain system holds that any logical inference is probable, but may or may not be true.
Example, one by one.
1. Probably electron is a particle
2. Probably electron is not a particle
3. Probably electron both a particle and a not-particle.
4. Probably electron is neither a particle nor a not-particle.
Probably itself is is an approximate translation of the term, which perhaps should be "Probably under certain conditions" or something like it. You can see all the above four statements can be true under certain conditions, but not simultaneously.
Take a piece of glass, say black. Now stare grinding it. The finer you grind, whiter it is. So what is its color?
Now heat the piece. AS the temperature rises, the color changes. So colou again depends on temperature too.
This more of quatum and relative logic.
***
In passing.
Indian logic from an ancient book of Nyaya Sutra.
That hill has fire. [to be proved]
Because it has smoke [reason of proof of fire]
Everything that has smoke has fire too for example kitchen hearth[ inductive example]
That hill too has smoke[direct observation]
Therefore the hill has fire. [inference]
It does not prove that a non smoky hill is non fiery too.
What color is an orange in the dark?
Almost.
A theory relies on both the truth of its premises but also the validity of its logic.
A valid deductive argument is one that follows from its premises.
A sound deductive argument is a valid argument where all the premises are true.
E.g.
All animals are mammals.
Humans are animals.
Therefore humans are mammals.
This is a valid deductive argument.
However it is not sound as not all the premises are true.
Similarly:
Some mammals are hairy.
Some Humans are hairy.
Therefore some humans are mammals.
Here the premises are true.
The conclusion is even true.
But the logic is actually invalid.
(If you don't think so, exchange the word human for spider).
An inconsistent theory might result from either invalid arguments or one or more untrue premises.
Logic is 2-D or (x,y) and uses the x-axis cause and the y-axis effect. There are circumstances that are 3-D, which contain an extra dimension defined by a z-axis, which cannot be fully explained with only (x,y) or cause and effect. There is a way to approximate the z-axis. As a visual analogy, picture a tennis ball with 3-D volume. We can approximate this ball with a large number of 2-D planes (circles), with a common center but at different angles.
For example, the democrat and republican platforms are both about governing humans. Both contain logic, data and truth but neither contain the entire truth, or else the other would not exist at 50%. Together, these two 2-D logic planes, approximate the 3-D ball of truth, but each separately fall short of 3-D, since 2-D cannot fully express 3-D.
Say I took the tennis ball, and I hit it with a tennis racket, while using slow motion photography. As the ball deforms, the various rational planes, which approximate this 3-D ball become distorted outside their normal planes of cause and effect, slightly into z-axis. We might call this a random occurrence, since cause and effect appear to break down; z-axis appears. But in 3-D, this is not random but is based on 3-D logic, using force, angle and the material distribution that absorbs the force.
As a 2-D analogy, say we are looking at a video on a large screen TV. What we will do is mask out 95% of the screen so all you can see is 5% of the video area toward to bottom right corner. Based on what you can see, you can define this area with logic and cause and effect. As the video plays, an arrow appears in the 5% area, because the video is a cowboy and indian western. But you can't see this with only the 5%. This arrow is not logical at its 5% reveal and would appear random based on how this 5% is defined. But in the context of the 100% video, this arrow is completely logical and not at all random.
The left brain is designed to differentiate and is not equipped to integrate. It won't try to pull off the mask but will be content to specialize the logic within only the 5% reveal zone and explain the illogical with randomness.
For example, the democrat and republican platforms are both about governing humans. Both contain logic, data and truth but neither contain the entire truth, or else the other would not exist at 50%. Together, these two 2-D logic planes, approximate the 3-D ball of truth, but each separately fall short of 3-D, since 2-D cannot fully express 3-D.
Say I took the tennis ball, and I hit it with a tennis racket, while using slow motion photography. As the ball deforms, the various rational planes, which approximate this 3-D ball become distorted outside their normal planes of cause and effect, slightly into z-axis. We might call this a random occurrence, since cause and effect appear to break down; z-axis appears. But in 3-D, this is not random but is based on 3-D logic, using force, angle and the material distribution that absorbs the force.
As a 2-D analogy, say we are looking at a video on a large screen TV. What we will do is mask out 95% of the screen so all you can see is 5% of the video area toward to bottom right corner. Based on what you can see, you can define this area with logic and cause and effect. As the video plays, an arrow appears in the 5% area, because the video is a cowboy and indian western. But you can't see this with only the 5%. This arrow is not logical at its 5% reveal and would appear random based on how this 5% is defined. But in the context of the 100% video, this arrow is completely logical and not at all random.
The left brain is designed to differentiate and is not equipped to integrate. It won't try to pull off the mask but will be content to specialize the logic within only the 5% reveal zone and explain the illogical with randomness.
I don't get the problem with light being a particle and wave. A river is many droplets of rain. H2O is an individual molecule and when there enough of them you get an ocean.
On the other hand I have a problem with the notion that light is a noun. If light were a noun, space would be lite up, but it is dark. Neither light nor heat occurs until the particles from a sun interact with a substance, making both light and heat verbs.
Light is an action. [to be proved]
Space between sun and earth is dark. [reason of proof of light not existing as a thing]
Where there is no substance there is darkness too for example outer space is dark. [inductive example]
Outer space has light only where there is substance. [direct observation]
Therefore, light is action not a thing. [inference]
Whoo, I think my brain is melting down, but I love trying to learn the logic that is being taught here. Please, do correct me.
Last edited:
Rita
You might want to investigate Cosmic Plasmas
Because what seems empty of substance , hence dark space , is full of energy
Not true. Obviously reality does not defy logic and reason.
In what way ?
Oh yes, I understand that space is full of energy and star dust, but it is not light. If light travels from the sun to the earth, it would be light all the way, but it is not. There is no light unless there is something to reflect, interact with, the energy coming from the sun.
I think this addresses what I am talking about better than Cosmic Plasmas
I will stand on light is a verb not a noun.
This also speaks of the action we call light
What we see is a happening, not a thing. When we are on the side of earth facing away from the sun it is night, dark. The energy is there but we do not see the happening, unless we are on the side of the earth facing the sun. For the same reason, our plants don't grow as well on south side of the building and the south side does not get the heat of the north side. The energy for light, heat and growth is action and reaction, not a thing.
Last edited:
IfIonlyhadabrain
Registered Member
You would have to have a solid grounding in terminology. What do we mean by "happiness," "love," "relationships," "morality," "personal value?" Given a standardized set of definitions, we can work to verify that such concepts adequately represent what's really going on. For example, how does one define love? Let us suppose love is defined as attraction. We can certainly say that love, defined as such, is real, since people are attracted to other people all the time. I'm not actually arguing that this is how love should be defined. I am merely demonstrating that the model for truth can be applicable to even difficult ideas.
There are at least a couple of reasons why this model of truth may be hard to apply to these important human concerns. One is that people do not interact with a consistent set of common definitions. What "morality" means to one person may mean something entirely different to another person. For example, one person may define morality as a code of conduct whereby one does not cause injury or offense to another person. Another person may define morality as a code of conduct whereby one does not cause injury or offense to God, even if that conduct may cause injury or offense to another person. While using the single term "morality" in everyday interaction, the truth of it becomes obscure, because of the confusion that results from two conflicting "moralities." The behaviour of one acting in the name of morality may lead the other to the conclusion that morality is an illusion, because the behaviour of the one is actually a violation of the other's concept of morality.
Another reason this model of truth may seem difficult to apply to these important human concerns is that these things are difficult to define. What is love? Is it attraction? Is it chemical reactions? Is it mutual respect and concern? Is it self-sacrifice? Is it sex? Is it all of these things? Is it only some of these things? Without an adequate concept of the terms involved, how could one expect to be certain the concept is an adequate representation of reality? It's like suggesting that Billy, who isn't sure if a tennis ball is round, or oval, yellow, brown, or white, is large or small, has series of pentagons and hexagons on it, or just a sinuous, continuous line, is bouncy, or not, or even what sport tennis is, can point to a tennis ball and say, "I KNOW that's a tennis ball!" No he doesn't. Likewise, if we're uncertain about what we mean by things like, self-worth, or happiness, then how can we certainly say whether people have them or not, or even if they're real values?
The model of truth presented can be applied to these concerns, it just requires a rigorously defined set of terms, applicable across the field (to all people), and applied with the understanding that the conditions that must be present within each set of these may not always be apparent or even determinable, or measurable, but if the terms are properly defined, there can be certainty that the necessary components are either present or absent.
"A proof shows us where to concentrate our doubts" - on the premises, the assumptions.
If you have arrived at a logical contradiction through correct reasoning, your premises have been shown to be inconsistent with each other.
If you have arrived at a reality contradiction through correct reasoning, your premises have been shown to be inconsistent with reality.
I know of only one truly difficult problem with reality inconsistent premises in a scientific argument, and that is Bell's Theorem
If you have arrived at a logical contradiction through correct reasoning, your premises have been shown to be inconsistent with each other.
If you have arrived at a reality contradiction through correct reasoning, your premises have been shown to be inconsistent with reality.
I know of only one truly difficult problem with reality inconsistent premises in a scientific argument, and that is Bell's Theorem
Apply Jain theory, and in absolute dark no colour can be judged. What would it be in blue or green light?
Strictly, when you said orange colour, what did you mean? Did you specify color of light? Color of your goggles?
It was probably orange in normal light, but probably would have no color on dark.
***
A curious example.
All men are mortals
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is a mortal.
Wrong in toto. Aristotelian logic is defficient and cannot solves this puzzle.
But a Hindu or Buddhist logician would ask: How is it known that all humans are mortal? This is ONE observation which cannot be be carried out, without the observer himself being an immortal. Or maybe in future an immortal man will be born.