Is logic a subset of math or vice versa?

Homepage Forums Science Is logic a subset of math or vice versa?

This topic contains 31 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 2 months, 4 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #25152

    Unseen
    Participant

    God would not have to have a “real” existence in the sense that we ourselves understand “real”

    #25154

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I can define some mysterious being in such a way

    We know at least that a God is the creator of the universe.  That is a necessary part of the definition of a monotheistic god.

    #25155

    @Simon  …..and reality is logical..
    Reality is the “way” you look at it. It is a subjective experience until a conversation is had that sets the laws that construct a version of reality that is shared. Even then, the objective reality shared by theists is different to the objective reality shared by atheists. Generally speaking ours is founded upon an understanding of the workings of the physical world and the laws of nature. Theists see an invisible hand at play instead. Two shared worldviews, two (or more) versions of reality.

     

    Regarding the “real” existence of God….we cannot ascribe qualities to something that does not exist in any logical way. When Kant said “existence is not a predicate” he meant that existence is not an attribute or defining quality. This is especially true of something that is not real, that does not exist in any objective reality. It must be shown to exist in the first place before it can be described. This is something most theists cannot wrap their heads around.

    Instead of the “fabric” of the Universe, try to picture layers upon layer of fuzzy “fields” of energies (like the static on an untuned TV screen). That is closer to visualizing the quantum world. All the dots that make up the field of fuzziness suddenly become waves and then dots again, and then both at the same time. What if you realized there was only one dot and it was also a wave at the same time and that the time way always now.  Hang on, nurse Ratchet has some logic pills for me to take!

    #25156

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    God would not have to have a “real” existence in the sense that we ourselves understand “real”

    All I’m saying is, we know there are multiple kinds of existence (e.g. physical, abstract, in thought or imagination).

    #25157

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    If you think about a human body, a person: it has its own logic.  The body seeks comfort and pleasure, and avoids discomfort and pain – in the short or long term.  The body has various needs and goals, etc, you can say that the body is a survival machine.

    So, living beings follow a logic.  This is close to evolutionary logic: the requirement to at least survive, and preferably reproduce.

    #25158

    Davis
    Participant

    We know at least that a God is the creator of the universe. That is a necessary part of the definition of a monotheistic god.

    but we don’t know that. We know that some people claim an incredible entity exists and that they assign this entity some amazing qualities, apparantly including the very creation of everything (somehow). But we don’t know that there is a God. And we cannot confirm any details, including using logic or not, because we can’t even confirm there is a God to begin with, nor take arguments of his existence lacking any evidence seriously. We cannot know that God works outside of logic, but only that some people (SOME) claim that God works outside of logic as we know it. Again, my point is, such a claim is no more meaningful than saying God works outside of the speed of light. Some how. The two claims are equally meaningful. Or that God works outside the realm of emotions. They are all equally not proven, equally invented and equally meaningless in arguments about logic and reality. We do not know that God created the universe, just that people claim so and saying your magic entity works outside the laws of physics etc. does not advance knowledge nor say anything other than curious thought experiments.

    #25160

    Davis
    Participant

    All I’m saying is, we know there are multiple kinds of existence (e.g. physical, abstract, in thought or imagination).

    Actually no. There are different ways of describing existence, but it is one existence. While no one can be 100%  certain, I’ve never remotely read a good argument that justifies the claim that there are multiple existences that are for example layers on top of one another or existing at the same time or a different view of the same reality, at least in a way that justifies any inherant demarcation of reality. Existence is the culmination of all phenoma and to divide existence undermines the meaning of existence: the entirety of all phenomena. I don’t understand why we would somehow draw an arbitrary line between existence as particles bouncing around while objects rotate in space, verses existence as the emergence of thought in the grey matter of a human brain. They come from the same underlying phenomena. Even if someone came up with a good argument for multiple existences, I cannot fathom how they would justify creating specific lines between say existence per thought vs existence per abstract. How on earth do you even draw that line? Where does the movement of a human body end and the abstract thoughts generated by the brain start and why are those two essential existences of their own? Are those existences divided by time and space or are there two realms existing at the same time somehow connected, perhaps through the “fabric of space”? In any case, the claim that God is outside of our knowledge of existence is still really problematic because that would mean there is yet another layer…perhaps outside the realm of physical and abstract existence? or apart of it, or beyond it? And it creates a lot more problems and provides no answers, because all we know is that some existence somehow exists and that existence is beyond us because a being that man invented apparently has those qualities, because they say so. It’s basically an argument made to avoid nearly any and all follow-up questions and creates a whole lot more unanswered and unanswerable question, for example, is there a hierarchy of existences or is existence itself just an extension of God subjectively demarcated by us puny humans with limited experience, where are the lines drawn, how are they drawn, how do they interact, which existences are accessible to us, how do we actually justify the claim that there is an existence per the abstract? How do we know any of this, what reason do we have to take any of these “multiple existences” seriously, especially when you throw a magical being into the mix? Why should I take an argument seriously when the argument itself is based on “because I say so and no I don’t have any evidence nor inherent rational justification”. We’re in a mess, existential, ontological, epistemological, metaphysical, moral mess. One that gets messier and no clearer with some invented God with opaque qualities beyond our understanding.

    • This reply was modified 3 months ago by  Davis.
    #25164

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Anselm’s Ontological Argument

    1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
    2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
    3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
    4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
    5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
    6. God exists in the mind as an idea.
    7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

    I think the argument amounts to “I can imagine there is a being that necessarily exists, therefore it exists.”

    I am attributing a quality, necessary real existence, to something in my imagination, which is a different form of existence.  Thoughts cannot become real just because we will them to.  If only they did.

    #25165

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Existence can go from solid to abstract, or solid to imagination, but not the other way round.  That’s why the argument is invalid.

    5.  Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.

    This statement is impossible.

    #25170

    Unseen
    Participant

    Hey, guys, this started out as a nonreligious discussion about how to relate math and logic. ROFLOL

    #25226

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Unseen, I’ve seen theologians conflate their theology with logic. Simon, I’ve seen humans conflate “evolution” (with its various meanings) and logic with natural law (whatever that means!), but the point imo is that we’re still making it all up, just trying to invent models, definitions, and ways of thinking to best help us understand how reality works.

    Abstract inventions of God are just more, human ways of trying to make sense of everything, and (probably most importantly) usually serve no useful purpose other than to enable humans to communicate with each other about their invented ideas.

    In that light, “mathematics” and “logic” are just  words, just constructs, because language itself is an invention, a construct, which we can say (for what it’s worth) “evolved”; and then saying it all evolved “naturally” is (again) just something we say to help us just believe God-didit or help us find more ways to explain how it happens “in reality”.

    It seems to me the most basic of all, necessary axioms is that reality is that which exists whether or not we humans exist. This, amazingly, is not a universally agreed upon axiom, and it seems that most humans on this planet are satisfied with declaring that it was and is always God that defines reality, whether or not humans exist. There is that human flaw of thinking, that invents and incorporates agency and intention into every explanation of reality.

    So, when discussing our (constructed) definitions of logic and mathematics, and while we’re trying to make them best fit reality as we best understand it, it is still useful to refine, understand, and try to agree upon our definitions, but at the same time realize that our definitions and even language itself are no more than inventions; constructs; concepts; abstractions. Honing the language helps us understand reality, but reality itself does not give a shit about our ideas, concepts, or language. Reality is a harsh mistress. (No, wait, there I go again, making shit up.)

    #25229

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Finally got my AS degree in Natural Science, back in December. But still taking classes, this semester two in computer science. One of my instructors LOVES a number, called Belphegor’s Prime (and even has a t-shirt for it).

    It’s 1000000000000066600000000000001, and it’s palindromic around an interesting center. You can read more devilish intent here.

    #25231

    My favorite number is “Umpteenth”. I don’t know how many times I have told people that. Congrats on the degree!

    #25232

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @popebeanie – well done on getting your degree.

    “mathematics” and “logic” are just words, just constructs, because language itself is an invention, a construct

    But an abstraction is different from a construct, and they are more than mere words, they refer to a world of abstraction.  Also, maths is discovered rather than constructed – and if a construction takes place, then we go on to discover the implications of that construction.

    #25235

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    But an abstraction is different from a construct, and they are more than mere words, they refer to a world of abstraction.

    I went here for clarification on the word and context, and perhaps I’m confusing what’s meta (e.g. language) with what’s real (e.g. universal laws of physics), and I’ll admit I’m working above my pay grade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_(disambiguation)

    I’m guessing that explaining a world of abstraction in the most elemental terms possible requires us to at least apply more than one context, e.g. a context only of physical elements, and a context of (say) a complex system of interactions among elements or (say) an underlying system of quantum behaviors. Explanations of the relationships between them would be “abstractions”. But I could be wrong.

    What if (regarding logic and math) one is not actually a subset of the other, but they are just defined in different contexts? And may still overlap in some contexts?

    Now I feel like one of the blind men around an elephant.

    Umm, yeah, an Unseen elephant. 🙂

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.