Is logic limited?

[EcK]

^ Interesting, But wouldn't that just make logic constantly grow but not reach to infinite?

I separated the notions of 'our actual model of the universe' and the process, which is an abstract tool used by the human mind.
I'm not sure it's possible for a human not to use logic to judge logic in this situation, but then again i'm not going to wait for some super AI to tell me it can think in 45 dimensions and that we are all wrong.
If you ask questions to human beings you therefore accept to face this issue of the observer/actor for the concerned system (here logics' theoretical maximum evolution in time and space)

So what I'm saying is maybe we could store data and compute at a sub planck scale level and not have to pay attention to the light speed limit and therefore time itself, meaning infinite computation and storage in 0 time. (or 1 planck time "unit of time" for data retrieval in our macro scale (i mean bigger than planck scale) causal space time.

 

[BlueScreen]

Now ofc that's not possible in this universe, be it only because of proton decay, entropy in general and the limited quantity of matter available to store information.

Add Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to the list .

 

[INTP]

1+1=2 is a logical equation
The knowledge is that there is a 1 and another 1.

1(= info aka knownledge) + 1(= info) = 2(=understanding). ability to cobine this info is logic and leads to understanding, if you take one info out, you limit understanding, not the logic itself, because logic is just ability to combine these things that you do know

 

[EcK]

Add Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to the list .

Yeah that was sort of implied by proton decay. but it's worth mentioning true, only it becomes sort of unsignificant when talking about such quantities of matter as can be found in the universe, but sure it does tell alot about the rate of decay.
There's also quantum fluctuations in space time and so on but those are mostly theoretical(as in no precise model and scale dependant observation issues). And ofc virtual particles.

and yeah for large quantities of data uncertainty can mess up storage the results, but extra computation can correct that, the issue is that it slows down computation and / or lessen available data storage space.

 

[Oaky]

I separated the notions of 'our actual model of the universe' and the process, which is an abstract tool used by the human mind.
I'm not sure it's possible for a human not to use logic to judge logic in this situation, but then again i'm not going to wait for some super AI to tell me it can think in 45 dimensions and that we are all wrong.
If you ask questions to human beings you therefore accept to face this issue of the observer/actor for the concerned system (here logics' theoretical maximum evolution in time and space)

So what I'm saying is maybe we could store data and compute at a sub planck scale level and not have to pay attention to the light speed limit and therefore time itself, meaning infinite computation and storage in 0 time. (or 1 planck time "unit of time" for data retrieval in our macro scale (i mean bigger than planck scale) causal space time.

I see. Very nice. I feel quite ashamed to say I had to look up the last thing you said about the sub planck scales. You give very interesting points.

1(= info aka knownledge) + 1(= info) = 2(=understanding). ability to cobine this info is logic and leads to understanding, if you take one info out, you limit understanding, not the logic itself, because logic is just ability to combine these things that you do know

Therefore logic is limited if knowledge is limited.

 

[INTP]

Therefore logic is limited if knowledge is limited.

haha typical intj "logics"

logic isnt limited because there is no use for logic if there is no info, it doesent mean that its limited, its just that if there is no info you cant apply logic in the matter

 

[BlueScreen]

Yeah that was sort of implied by proton decay. but it's worth mentioning true, only it becomes sort of unsignificant when talking about such quantities of matter as can be found in the universe, but sure it does tell alot about the rate of decay.
There's also quantum fluctuations in space time and so on but those are mostly theoretical(as in no precise model and scale dependant observation issues). And ofc virtual particles.

and yeah for large quantities of data uncertainty can mess up storage the results, but extra computation can correct that, the issue is that it slows down computation and / or lessen available data storage space.

Yeh. I just meant in the sense that we'll never measure all the information in the universe no matter what technologies we produce. Obviously we can't build anything in the universe that will store all the information in the universe anyway, but it is there as a fundamental limit beyond the other more reasonable limits you mention .

 

[Oaky]

haha typical intj "logics"

logic isnt limited because there is no use for logic if there is no info, it doesent mean that its limited, its just that if there is no info you cant apply logic in the matter

We take pride in our logic.

Then that would mean emotions are in the boundaries of logic. If they are then wouldn't everyone in this world be a logical thinker.

 

[EcK]

To me it's simply a Te/Ti miscommunication, one group considers logic to be an abstract cultural notion describing a process and that in the face of limited knowledge of the universe one cannot say of yes or not some physical limit to data computation/logic/data storage exists (see my sub planck scale computation example)
yet we do understand the rules of systems we created ourselves, and to me, the rules of the closed system/process I and we (as it is social knowledge, ofc) do not imply a structural limit in itself and the fact that the outside universe is an uncertainty and has a potential infinity of unknown values make me say that the process could potentially apply itself ad infinitum if the requiered 'tools' were available, meaning a way to store data and a way to compute data.

Now the Te view is more about 'what can observation tell me about the system now' and consider it to be limited.
But then again i don't have any te laying around so i'll let you expand on that if you want to.

 

[Take Five]

Human logic, like human everything, is imperfect and limited. So yes, it seems the truth can go beyond human logic. This is not to say that logic can't point us in the right direction of truth.

 

[EcK]

We take pride in our logic.

Then that would mean emotions are in the boundaries of logic. If they are then wouldn't everyone in this world be a logical thinker.

You forget that we live in a dynamic universe, so basically we live in space-time (duh!).
"What does this mean mr candyman?"

It means that logic can be a self expanding process. So culture allows us to have more and more material available to be subjected to analysis (data but also technologies)
But just look at computering or genetic engineering, these fields will eventually lead us to better/change ourselves (as obviously we're not going to willingfully turn ourselves into something we consider to be 'below us'). And to finish with this post, computing and AIs could oneday lead us to spawn a new race of intelligent beings able to auto evolve and process data at rates unavailable to biological systems (because of obvious size and heat dissipation issues)

 

[INTP]

We take pride in our logic.

Then that would mean emotions are in the boundaries of logic. If they are then wouldn't everyone in this world be a logical thinker.

logic is action of its own, has nothing to do with emotions or enything else, its just ability to combine knowns facts into understanding.

Ti = function of logic. you use Ni and Te, some logic can come out of it, but its most likely pretty sucky compared to what comes from Ti. My intj friend has same kind of problem with logic as you do, your words allmoast sound like coming from his mouth when discussing stuff like this. you take pride in your logics because of Ni is fooling you with what could be and you belive in it so firmly that you think that its the absolute truth, same with my friend

im not saying this to make you feel bad, just trying to give you some understanding from real logic from objective point of view

 

[Oaky]

You forget that we live in a dynamic universe, so basically we live in space-time (duh!).
"What does this mean mr candyman?"

It means that logic can be a self expanding process. So culture allows us to have more and more material available to be subjected to analysis (data but also technologies)
But just look at computering or genetic engineering, these fields will eventually lead us to better/change ourselves (as obviously we're not going to willingfully turn ourselves into something we consider to be 'below us'). And to finish with this post, computing and AIs could oneday lead us to spawn a new race of intelligent beings able to auto evolve and process data at rates unavailable to biological systems (because of obvious size and heat dissipation issues)

That's some science fiction movie plot going on there.

 

[EcK]

Human logic, like human everything, is imperfect and limited. So yes, it seems the truth can go beyond human logic. This is not to say that logic can't point us in the right direction of truth.

Truth is an absurd concept. There cannot be any truth in a relativistic viewer dependant universe. The only object that could be defined is the 'everything' but then 'truth' is a creation of the mind and is meaningless without a mind to observe it, obviously if you take 'everything' there's no place left for a mind to observe the everything as it could only be part of the system but not bigger than the system.

+ As far as our knowledge go, for a thing to be defined as an object, its uncertainty has to be defined (collapse of the wave function) by another object/"an observer"(doesn't have to be a person).
So the 'everything' is undefined/uncertain by nature, and as Truth is supposed to be an absolute, the viewer independant, unrelative everything cannot be True. Therefore truth cannot exist.

 

[EcK]

That's some science fiction movie plot going on there.

Oh , i was going easy on you
Yeah, i'm really a famous science fiction author

 

[FemMecha]

Logic is only as good as the assumptions and information on which it is based. The main flaws in human application of logic is our tendency to make flawed assumptions or use faulty information. Limitations can include a tendency to oversimplify data so that it fits the model, or to dismiss as irrelevant any data that by nature resists measurement, that is subjective by nature. When we find a system of ideas that is internally sound logically, there is a tendency to distort data to fit with it. Edit: One of the more common issues is to have fragmented data, to take a certain set of data and find connections without taking into account a holistic model of all causes and effects on that system./edit.

An example of this is to encounter a person in intense pain. The doctor can take measurements based on all known causes of pain. If none of these can show the source of pain, the doctor might dismiss that person's experience of pain as imagined or exaggerated. That assumption can be flawed, but serves as an example of flawed human logic based on distorting or dismissing data to fit current, known models of ideas and assumptions.

 

[EcK]

Yeh. I just meant in the sense that we'll never measure all the information in the universe no matter what technologies we produce. Obviously we can't build anything in the universe that will store all the information in the universe anyway, but is there as a fundamental limit beyond the other more reasonable limits you mention .

to answer your question, we simply cannot know that, so it's like 'uncertainty of knowledge'. That's why i divided logic as an abstract math-like process (closed system) and the applicability of an ad infinitum growth.

 

[Oaky]

Oh , i was going easy on you
Yeah, i'm really a famous science fiction author

I can definitely see it.

logic is action of its own, has nothing to do with emotions or enything else, its just ability to combine knowns facts into understanding.

Ti = function of logic. you use Ni and Te, some logic can come out of it, but its most likely pretty sucky compared to what comes from Ti. My intj friend has same kind of problem with logic as you do, your words allmoast sound like coming from his mouth when discussing stuff like this. you take pride in your logics because of Ni is fooling you with what could be and you belive in it so firmly that you think that its the absolute truth, same with my friend

im not saying this to make you feel bad, just trying to give you some understanding from real logic from objective point of view

I see. I am not offended at all. And I very much know the INTP doesn't see things in the same terms as the INTJ.
Actions are taken from either emotion or logic or both. If someone takes an action by emotions then wouldn't that mean he is doing something outside of logic?

 

[Athenian200]

logic is action of its own, has nothing to do with emotions or enything else, its just ability to combine knowns facts into understanding.

Ti = function of logic. you use Ni and Te, some logic can come out of it, but its most likely pretty sucky compared to what comes from Ti. My intj friend has same kind of problem with logic as you do, your words allmoast sound like coming from his mouth when discussing stuff like this. you take pride in your logics because of Ni is fooling you with what could be and you belive in it so firmly that you think that its the absolute truth, same with my friend

im not saying this to make you feel bad, just trying to give you some understanding from real logic from objective point of view

Oh, what does a silly INTP know about logic?

INTP logic is good, IF you assume that the ways in which humans can perceive things to work is the more significant factor compared to how things actually play out.

 

[krunchtime]

By limited I mean are there things that can go beyond human logic and understanding? If there are than logic is therefore limited.

Then its not limited. If we derive all our theoretical ideas and understanding of the external world through reasoning, it is impossible for us to conceive of things which fall outside logical reasoning. Any phenomena which appears to defy our understanding, hence logic, must be due to a lack of sufficient data, or gaps in reasoning.

Can truth go beyond the rules of logic?

Therefore, no. The difference between Ti and Te is Lawliet versus Light
Waiting for a logician to tackle this question