Is LOGIC the ultimate authority?

[Mole]

how do you differentiate a feeling from a thought. Fear of god could make me confide in god for emotional reasons... but isnt there thought behind what made that fear a fear? ( or emotion, fear was just an example)

Emotions affect our logic, logic affects our emotion. Im not sure if there is a way to differentiate ( besides modern MBTI beleif)

Unfortunately MBTI is a fraud and has no more truth value than astrology.

But one way to see the distinction between thought and emotion is in pathology.

For instance, the thoughts of schiziphrenics are are out of touch with reality, while their emotions remain in touch with reality.

And in contradistinction, the emotions of the clinically depressed are out of touch with reality, while their thoughts remain in touch with reality.

 

[Ginkgo]

Logic is only as good as the premises you take faith in and the premises you suspect to be true. Is logic an "authority"? It's really only an authority in being logic. Even though it's an intellectual faculty there's no need to make it more than it is.

 

[wildcat]

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?:

"Logic cannot be the ultimate authority.
If it were, we couldn't prove the laws of logic to be objectively authoritative in the first place, because we would have to assume they were authoritative in order to do so, which is circular reasoning."

I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not (or whether it even makes sense).

If possible, please explain the reasons for your position.

Conclusion is based on logic.
Judgement is not a conclusion.
It is a decision.

 

[You]

not to humans, because humans are irrational creatures.

 

[Poki]

Logic is logic. It is not thought nor feeling. Yes thoughts CAN be logical...but logic exists outside of thought. Once you build a "logical" curcuit it requires no human thought to operate. It becomes the ultimate authority. So lets pull it back further...does this circuitry exist without human interaction...does logic naturally occur or does it not exist until we put it into existance? What comes first the execution of logic or the creation of logic?

 

[Poki]

not to humans, because humans are can be irrational creatures.

fixed

 

[entropie]

Logic is logic. It is not thought nor feeling. Yes thoughts CAN be logical...but logic exists outside of thought. Once you build a "logical" curcuit it requires no human thought to operate. It becomes the ultimate authority. So lets pull it back further...does this circuitry exist without human interaction...does logic naturally occur or does it not exist until we put it into existance? What comes first the execution of logic or the creation of logic?

Intresting thought. Since most of quantum physics and the string theories have proven to being quite illogical at times, I wouldnt even say logic is natural. Still its our way to trieing to explain the Universe and the question remains if the Universe would bend to logic at all or if maybe one day there will be a new concept and we'ld laugh at logic. Think about imaginary time. To being able to explain some things in space, one uses imaginary time so one can be correct. For example a black hole is a place where time has come to an end, but thats not true since the black hole can grow further. So only in the black hole time has come to an end. So if you were in a black hole time would be still going on for you, you'ld feel that way at least, while spacetime would have come to an end. No further movement. So theoretically you shouldnt be able to now whats time no more cause there is no more movement. But you do, cause you have been at a place before that had time. So you remember. That creates the question, how will certain places we are yet to explore influence our logic.

My personal theory is that logic will come from true or false, first of all into a kind of vector thinking. Where you say, no matter where you go, in x, y, or z direction, the result will be the same, but you have all these options. So that only true and false evolves and gets more data to be filled with. Or spin, that you can say if a true ball revolves clockwise or counterclockwise. These are concrete logic examples for computers but since computers have influenced our way to think logically, why shouldnt they again ?

This is intresting because only because it feels to us that there cant possibly anything better than logic doesnt mean there isnt. And its not only about feeling, in the logical realm the definitions are the problem. What is time, when time has come to an end ? What if the entropy was zero and everything was in order, does time still exist ?

Given all that thoughts, assuming that anything could be a kind of ultimate authority would be foolish. Still if you like BDSM and love to be punished by an authority, you would have a problem.

 

[Poki]

Intresting thought. Since most of quantum physics and the string theories have proven to being quite illogical at times, I wouldnt even say logic is natural. Still its our way to trieing to explain the Universe and the question remains if the Universe would bend to logic at all or if maybe one day there will be a new concept and we'ld laugh at logic. Think about imaginary time. To being able to explain some things in space, one uses imaginary time so one can be correct. For example a black hole is a place where time has come to an end, but thats not true since the black hole can grow further. So only in the black hole time has come to an end. So if you were in a black hole time would be still going on for you, you'ld feel that way at least, while spacetime would have come to an end. No further movement. So theoretically you shouldnt be able to now whats time no more cause there is no more movement. But you do, cause you have been at a place before that had time. So you remember. That creates the question, how will certain places we are yet to explore influence our logic.

My personal theory is that logic will come from true or false, first of all into a kind of vector thinking. Where you say, no matter where you go, in x, y, or z direction, the result will be the same, but you have all these options. So that only true and false evolves and gets more data to be filled with. Or spin, that you can say if a true ball revolves clockwise or counterclockwise. These are concrete logic examples for computers but since computers have influenced our way to think logically, why shouldnt they again ?

This is intresting because only because it feels to us that there cant possibly anything better than logic doesnt mean there isnt. And its not only about feeling, in the logical realm the definitions are the problem. What is time, when time has come to an end ? What if the entropy was zero and everything was in order, does time still exist ?

Given all that thoughts, assuming that anything could be a kind of ultimate authority would be foolish. Still if you like BDSM and love to be punished by an authority, you would have a problem.

I dont think the universe would bend to anything, but if the universe is logical it would not have to bend. Theories have holes...therfore the logic behind them is somewhat flawed. We are not talking an "authority figure", but the underlying concept so to say. When we find what is right, can there actually be a "better"? When you hit the "limit" or the universe, can "more right" be possible? At that point you have nothing to base "more" off of. So if Logic can define the entire universe how can you get better...all you can have is different. 2+4=6 and 1+2+3=6. Which one is better?

 

[Poki]

Intresting thought. Since most of quantum physics and the string theories have proven to being quite illogical at times, I wouldnt even say logic is natural. Still its our way to trieing to explain the Universe and the question remains if the Universe would bend to logic at all or if maybe one day there will be a new concept and we'ld laugh at logic. Think about imaginary time. To being able to explain some things in space, one uses imaginary time so one can be correct. For example a black hole is a place where time has come to an end, but thats not true since the black hole can grow further. So only in the black hole time has come to an end. So if you were in a black hole time would be still going on for you, you'ld feel that way at least, while spacetime would have come to an end. No further movement. So theoretically you shouldnt be able to now whats time no more cause there is no more movement. But you do, cause you have been at a place before that had time. So you remember. That creates the question, how will certain places we are yet to explore influence our logic.

My personal theory is that logic will come from true or false, first of all into a kind of vector thinking. Where you say, no matter where you go, in x, y, or z direction, the result will be the same, but you have all these options. So that only true and false evolves and gets more data to be filled with. Or spin, that you can say if a true ball revolves clockwise or counterclockwise. These are concrete logic examples for computers but since computers have influenced our way to think logically, why shouldnt they again ?

This is intresting because only because it feels to us that there cant possibly anything better than logic doesnt mean there isnt. And its not only about feeling, in the logical realm the definitions are the problem. What is time, when time has come to an end ? What if the entropy was zero and everything was in order, does time still exist ?

Given all that thoughts, assuming that anything could be a kind of ultimate authority would be foolish. Still if you like BDSM and love to be punished by an authority, you would have a problem.

I dont think the universe would bend to anything, but if the universe is logical it would not have to bend. Theories have holes...therfore the logic behind them is somewhat flawed. We are not talking an "authority figure", but the underlying concept so to say. When we find what is right, can there actually be a "better"? When you hit the "limit" or the universe, can "more right" be possible? At that point you have nothing to base "more" off of. So if Logic can define the entire universe how can you get better...all you can have is different. 2+4=6 and 1+2+3=6. Which one is better?

 

[Poki]

Intresting thought. Since most of quantum physics and the string theories have proven to being quite illogical at times, I wouldnt even say logic is natural. Still its our way to trieing to explain the Universe and the question remains if the Universe would bend to logic at all or if maybe one day there will be a new concept and we'ld laugh at logic. Think about imaginary time. To being able to explain some things in space, one uses imaginary time so one can be correct. For example a black hole is a place where time has come to an end, but thats not true since the black hole can grow further. So only in the black hole time has come to an end. So if you were in a black hole time would be still going on for you, you'ld feel that way at least, while spacetime would have come to an end. No further movement. So theoretically you shouldnt be able to now whats time no more cause there is no more movement. But you do, cause you have been at a place before that had time. So you remember. That creates the question, how will certain places we are yet to explore influence our logic.

My personal theory is that logic will come from true or false, first of all into a kind of vector thinking. Where you say, no matter where you go, in x, y, or z direction, the result will be the same, but you have all these options. So that only true and false evolves and gets more data to be filled with. Or spin, that you can say if a true ball revolves clockwise or counterclockwise. These are concrete logic examples for computers but since computers have influenced our way to think logically, why shouldnt they again ?

This is intresting because only because it feels to us that there cant possibly anything better than logic doesnt mean there isnt. And its not only about feeling, in the logical realm the definitions are the problem. What is time, when time has come to an end ? What if the entropy was zero and everything was in order, does time still exist ?

Given all that thoughts, assuming that anything could be a kind of ultimate authority would be foolish. Still if you like BDSM and love to be punished by an authority, you would have a problem.

I dont think the universe would bend to anything, but if the universe is logical it would not have to bend. Theories have holes...therfore the logic behind them is somewhat flawed. We are not talking an "authority figure", but the underlying concept so to say. When we find what is right, can there actually be a "better"? When you hit the "limit" or the universe, can "more right" be possible? At that point you have nothing to base "more" off of. So if Logic can define the entire universe how can you get better...all you can have is different. 2+4=6 and 1+2+3=6. Which one is better? Its not until you bring in more requirements does something become "more right" if previously all requirements were met.

 

[ygolo]

I think the belief in ultimate authority regarding truth is wrong headed. Sometimes observation trumps logic, other times logic tells us to observe more carefully. Sometimes what is needed is imagination, at other times trust in what other people say. There are many ways to use our faculties to attempt to find out the truth. Sometimes some faculties and tools are called upon, at other times other faculties.

 

[Poki]

I think the belief in ultimate authority regarding truth is wrong headed. Sometimes observation trumps logic, other times logic tells us to observe more carefully. Sometimes what is needed is imagination, at other times trust in what other people say. There are many ways to use our faculties to attempt to find out the truth. Sometimes some faculties and tools are called upon, at other times other faculties.

Practical ...

 

[ygolo]

Practical ...

Haha. OK. Something more "philosophical" then.

Logic (at least deductive formal logic) is a system of going from assumptions (preimises) to conclusions. We can try to minimize the number of assumptions we make to start this process, but even among those could be an assumption which is false. This means, in addition to being able to deduce conclusions properly, we need to find ways to make the proper assumptions. For this, we need our other faculties and tools that enhance those faculties.

But suppose you do use logic to come to a conclusion. Can we just assume it is true? Obviously, not. We need to be able to test those conclusions against our observations. If we see a mismatch, we can believe that a number of things went wrong. Perhaps something went wrong with the observations? Perhaps something went wrong with our deduction process? Perhaps one of our initial assumptions was wrong? I have known all these things to happen in my attempts at logic.

Perhaps we could come to a more radical conclusion. That formal logic itself is "wrong". For instance, with quantum mechanics, the notion of the state of the system no longer follows the logic applied to the classical notion of states of a system. But the way we actually describe quantum mechanical phenomena is built on Mathematics, which is itself built on "classical" logic. The difference between classical and quantum mechanics is what level of mathematics we map to reality.

I personally think that we will never know if logic itself is wrong. It is hardwired into the way we think (collectively). Granted, some phenomena may not have a description in a formal system we have already devised. However, that doesn't mean we wont come up with a formal system later on that describe the phenomena correctly.

For similar reasons to why absolute certainty in truth is difficult, absolute certainty in logic is difficult. But I choose to believe in both truth and logic because the alternatives are too much work.

 

[Poki]

Is it ever logical to defy logic? In that case you have done nothing more then created new temporary logic that allows logic to still hold true, but allows a different path to side step the illogical.


The day we perfect logic is the day that we cant differentiate AI with our own intelligence.

 

[Frank]

Cannot resist...

Logic isn't the ultimate authority. If you view politicians in general, regardless of whether they're elected, put in by right of might or inherited, there's nothing logical about them or how they govern...For that matter, there's nothing logical about laws, although application of interpretation of laws can be logical.

+1000. In fact there is a painful absence of logic from our current system and its policies. Money writes the law. While a profit is a beautiful thing, it is illogical to put its pursuit above all else from a governing standpoint. Come to think of it, it is illogical for us to expect anything else with our revolving door between government and corporate execs and the billions they are allowed to spend in lobbying.

 

[Poki]

+1000. In fact there is a painful absence of logic from our current system and its policies. Money writes the law. While a profit is a beautiful thing, it is illogical to put its pursuit above all else from a governing standpoint. Come to think of it, it is illogical for us to expect anything else with our revolving door between government and corporate execs and the billions they are allowed to spend in lobbying.

When did opinion enter the realm of logic? Not argueing for or against the law or government...but what was written is solely opinion. Most laws are put in place for a reason, whether the masses agree with them or not.