Self Evidence
I *think* that a principle of logical argument is that the burden of proof is upon the proponent.
When I hear "logic" assert the Principle of Identity, I say "prove it." Logic's response seems to be, it's "self-evident". That response reminds me of a frustrated parent saying "because I said so."
To be more gracious, maybe logic is just saying "because we must agree on that before we go forward into argument. Otherwise, we can't even converse."
Nevertheless, it leaves me feeling somewhat an imposter to continue without a proof. Indeed, I'd think that anything so grand as the "self-evident" would easily be demonstrated by abundant simpler proofs. If the King is going to tell me about his cloths, surely he could show me a sock? (Sans anecdote, which logic itself abhors).
In response to a demand for proof, I've also heard that a negative cannot be proven. If true, then would it be fair to say that logic is based upon something that cannot be proven?
All the forgoing is a digression I'm trying to address in aid of another argument. I'm convinced that infinity must account for the absence of itself in order for it to be infinite. A failure to do so would render it finite, which I think it is. I think it is both. I think that where "A" = "All", then "A" = "A" + "A" = "-A". But that defies logic.
I think the failure of physicists to marry General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is due to their stipulation to the Principles of Logic which they think are required to allow them to converse.
Everything and nothing is happening and not happening, everywhere and nowhere, all at once, now, never and forever. I've been beating my head against the wall reading Hegel for quite some time now, but I think this may be where he is going. However, for me to defeat myself, I have to resolve this initial proof of self-evidence with something more than "because I told you so." If that can be done, then I'll have to revisit my supposition.
Any help on the Principle of Identity or the Law of Contradiction would be appreciated.
When I hear "logic" assert the Principle of Identity, I say "prove it." Logic's response seems to be, it's "self-evident". That response reminds me of a frustrated parent saying "because I said so."
To be more gracious, maybe logic is just saying "because we must agree on that before we go forward into argument. Otherwise, we can't even converse."
Nevertheless, it leaves me feeling somewhat an imposter to continue without a proof. Indeed, I'd think that anything so grand as the "self-evident" would easily be demonstrated by abundant simpler proofs. If the King is going to tell me about his cloths, surely he could show me a sock? (Sans anecdote, which logic itself abhors).
In response to a demand for proof, I've also heard that a negative cannot be proven. If true, then would it be fair to say that logic is based upon something that cannot be proven?
All the forgoing is a digression I'm trying to address in aid of another argument. I'm convinced that infinity must account for the absence of itself in order for it to be infinite. A failure to do so would render it finite, which I think it is. I think it is both. I think that where "A" = "All", then "A" = "A" + "A" = "-A". But that defies logic.
I think the failure of physicists to marry General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is due to their stipulation to the Principles of Logic which they think are required to allow them to converse.
Everything and nothing is happening and not happening, everywhere and nowhere, all at once, now, never and forever. I've been beating my head against the wall reading Hegel for quite some time now, but I think this may be where he is going. However, for me to defeat myself, I have to resolve this initial proof of self-evidence with something more than "because I told you so." If that can be done, then I'll have to revisit my supposition.
Any help on the Principle of Identity or the Law of Contradiction would be appreciated.
Comments (73)
“It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” (with the appropriate qualifications) (Metaph IV 3 1005b19–20)
- Aristotle.
To start off, this is an interesting subject and a very well written opening post.
Here's a list of philosophical definitions I posted here a few years ago.
Definitions:
Anyway, I share your suspicion about "self-evident." I think you're exactly right, it's "because we must agree on that before we go forward into argument. Otherwise, we can't even converse." That's what R.G. Collingwood would call an absolute presupposition. Do you agree @tim wood? On the other hand, when I say "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...," it's something different. It's a statement of values. Actually, now that I think about it, maybe a value is an absolute presupposition too.
Quoting James Riley
If I may paraphrase that famous philosopher Joel Hodgson:
[i]If you're wondering how it's justified
And other logic facts
Then repeat to yourself "It's just philosophy
I should really just relax"
[/i]Quoting James Riley
This has always bothered me. Maybe you can't prove a negative is true, but you can show it's useful to act as if it is. To me, this shows how little people understand what "to know" means. I think the Hodgson paraphrase works even better here.
Quoting James Riley
Mathematics is full of ideas that are absurd until we find a use for them, e.g. zero, irrational numbers, negative numbers, imaginary numbers. Infinity is useful, therefor it exists.
Quoting James Riley
Is this based on some specific knowledge or understanding you have? Please explain.
Quoting James Riley
My pet peeve is logical fallacies. I think a lot of the arguments called that are useful and legitimate.
Anyway, good post.
When I say "I think the failure of physicists to marry General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is due to their stipulation to the Principles of Logic which they think are required to allow them to converse", my thought is not based on specific knowledge, or even a perfect understanding of how physicists converse, but, rather, on supposition. I assume that physicists abide the advice of tim wood, above, regarding tools and the proper use thereof. And I assume that abidance is the cause of their failure.
In following tim wood's advice, I've tried to go back to the beginning (the fundamental principles of logic) and check to make sure they stand up to more than a simple "gentleman's agreement" made to allow us all to make our way in this world, unhindered by uncomfortable, counterintuitive truths.
I was taught that in logical argument, the parties must chase all the premises back to that point upon which everyone is agreed before they can go forward (i.e. the beginning or a fork in the path). I'm simply refusing to agree with logic's premise, and demanding that it meet its burden of proof with more than a "because I said so." Perhaps I'm just not a gentleman.
I get there because I always get a "Duh!" feeling in my gut whenever I hear how quantum theory has come up with some new idea, like spooky action at a distance, for example. It seems to me that if my a priori truth (as you defined such truths above) were to be accepted, if all the tools were tossed, and all the rules were broken, and we started anew with my understanding of All, then "Duh!" would be the wedding of the two camps.
One might argue such a definition of All would have our brains fall out in open mindedness; we could not converse or make our way in the world. Even if that were true, I see no harm in assigning a small cadre of physicists to look into it. After all, it seems to be their camp which is frustrated. While they are skipping along their investigative way forward, they might send a party back to make sure they didn’t get off the trail at the beginning. Of course, by my definition of All, there would be nothing wrong with that if they did. Indeed, it would be necessary. It would not even be a waste of time to waste their time.
But if my definition of All were correct, I don’t think it means our brains would fall out or we couldn’t converse. I just think people smarter than me (physicists) would have some “AHA!” moments we could all enjoy and benefit from after the dutiful dumbing down for public consumption.
All the foregoing, and my tossing out the rules, had me generating what I thought were interesting opinions on particle physics, singularities, matter, dark matter, energy, dark energy, and time. But I’d sure like to nail down why I’m wrong about my foundation before I continue building on it.
Anyway, thank you for your gracious and understanding response. It is impossible for wise to complain about stupid. And, while you might have made fun of me and I’m just too stupid to know it (not saying you did; it’s just that it flew over my head, as it was probably supposed to, if indeed you did), at least you didn’t complain. A soft broke horse is a better horse.
I absolutely wasn't trying to make fun of you. I did try to be funny. The list of definitions I included is from a thread of philosophy jokes I started a couple of years ago.
Quoting James Riley
I assume I'm no more sophisticated in advanced physics than you are. It is my understanding that the reason quantum mechanics and relativity don't fit together is that they describe two different worlds. Unfortunately, there is only one world. There is no doubt in my mind that they will be able to be reconciled eventually.
Quoting James Riley
Don't underestimate the power of those gentleman's agreements. I have made the argument many times that most of the questions addressed on the forum, and in philosophy in general, are metaphysical questions. By which I mean that they set the stage for our understanding of the world but they are neither true nor false. They are useful in a particular situation or not useful.
Quoting James Riley
To me it is the essence of philosophy that everything eventually goes back to "because God said so," "because X said so," "because we agreed that it was so," "because I said so," or "just because." Ultimately, there is probably one additional step back - "because that's how our minds work. How they have evolved to interact with the world."
Quoting James Riley
You've lost me a bit. Is this cadre going back to reevaluate the underlying assumptions in order to find why we can't reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics? That's being done. I think it's hard, because both theories work very, very well to describe the phenomena they cover. And now we've reached the point, likely gone beyond the point, when I don't know what I'm talking about.
Quoting James Riley
Maybe I'm lost again. Those entities - matter, time, particles, etc. - are physical phenomena we have observed or at least are trying to observe. They are not logical entities. What rules are you throwing out again?
Some advice - If, when you want to respond to a particular post, you click on the "reply" arrow that shows up when you run your curser next to the time stamp at the bottom of that post, your reply will be tagged and the person you are replying to will be notified.
Even better, if you want to reply to some particular text, you can highlight that text. A black "quote" button will show up. If you click on that, the text you highlighted will be copied down to the reply you are writing with a tag which notifies the person you are replying to.
I have a feeling that taking any of the ideas I've discussed here any further will divert the discussion from what you are trying to achieve here. You and I have very different philosophies.
Ah. There's the problem.
Here's a tired old example for you to think about. Suppose you attempted to play chess against an opponent who moved the pieces anywhere. How would the game go?
Suppose that opponent then said he saw no reason why he should move the pieces as stipulated; after all, the rules are mere "I told you so".
Abandon the law of noncontradiction and anything follows: p & ~p ? q.
Accepting a contradiction is the same as accepting any and every other proposition. Hence, doing so obliterates further discussion.
Yes. That's what I would like to know is being done. If there is a group of smart people going backwards, instead forwards, to the very beginning, with the goal of launching an all out assault on the fundamental principles they thought were in stone, re-testing to make sure they are indeed in stone, and infallible, and that their comrades at the front, pushing forward with physics, are still on the right track, then I would sleep better at night. I'd prefer if these people were some of those who have been to the front, and who have run into a contemporary wall in physics, so they can know their exercise is not merely academic. I want their heart in it.
I know I am certainly not qualified to do more than simply say "prove it" when logic trots out "self-evidence" or "can't prove a negative" as it's sole response to my challenge. I would hope that people smarter than me would either upend the principles or, if the principles are sound, then at least come forward with something better than anecdote, or something akin to "Well, Jim, if you don't agree, I can't talk to you any more."
To hearken back to a previous post, if the principles hold, I would hope they'd at least return from their ventures and show me a sock. And in anticipatory argument, that sock would be a proof, and that proof would not merely be anecdote; and that proof would not merely reference to how frustrating, difficult, or impossible life would be if we had to place chess with those who don't know our rules.
Quoting T Clark
Those physical phenomena are aspects of the two theories that, to date, have not been wed. I'm suggesting the failure to wed them could be, at least in part, due to the approach to the phenomena being based entirely on logical entities (gentlemen's agreement) that have not yet themselves been proven and which could thus be inadequate to the task. Maybe the rules being used really aren't the rules.
What if the frustrating place we find ourselves is due our having adopted a premise that should not have been agreed upon in the first place? As an analogy, Socrates' (Phaedo) discussion of the corporeal versus his discussion of the perfect soul; it's not unlike logic being corporeal (of this world), whereas the perfect soul is "All" and not so limited. Maybe reality is the opponent moving chess pieces around the board in violation of all the rules the body thinks it knows. Perhaps those who fail to play by corporeal rules know multiple, infinite worlds that we have not fathomed. It would seem to me the answer *might* start with the all out assault on what we think we know and how we got here.
Your advice on quotes, and how to do them, was much needed. I had early on thought to educate myself on this but I was too intimidated or lazy to research the features of the board and how that was done. Your concise placement here is greatly appreciated.
In conclusion, I just came here looking for a sock.
Do you know enough about physics to know whether the evaluation you are discussing is already being done? Do you know what the fundamental principles underlying current physics are? I guess what it comes down to is, do you know enough about modern physics to be able to ask the question "What's the matter with modern physics?"
Quoting James Riley
Would you recognize a sock if they showed you one?
Quoting T Clark
Quoting T Clark
Physics is not the question. The question is logic. I'm assuming physicists are abiding science, and it's traditional adherence to the fundamental principles of logic. It is the principles of logic that I question. If I am wrong on that, and physicists have found a sock, then yes, since it is a logic sock they would have found, I would recognize it. But I've not heard of it. I came here, to a logic forum, in search of it. So far, no joy.
On the other hand, if physics or any other study for that matter, had disproved a fundamental principle of logic in pursuit of their own inquiries, I think it would have been Earth-shaking news that rocked the world. Again, I've not heard of it. I suspect I would not have to come here looking if it existed. But crickets.
I've always appreciated the cartoonist and their ability to reduce a complex issue to one or a few cells. I cannot draw for the life of me. But if I could, I would imagine this: A parade down the middle of a boulevard, the leader of which would be a King, a crown on his head and scepter in hand, buck-naked and the word "Logic" on his crown. All the many people line the way, with high acclaim for his wonderful clothing. A little boy points and asks "Momma, why is the King naked?" To which his mother responds "But he is not! He has a beautiful, regal outfit!"
Edited to add: It could be any area of study, not just physics. I chose physics because their inability, but desire to marry two theories is, I think fundamentally important to philosophy.
I don't see the fundamental issues in physics as logical errors. Somebody tell me I'm wrong.
Quoting James Riley
Physics doesn't prove or disprove logical principles. I don't think it can, by definition. It uses them as tools.
Quoting James Riley
Inability so far. I don't think physics is ever important to philosophy. I do think that philosophy is important to physics, although you won't find many physicists who agree. From what I've read, I think many physicists believe that a solution to the QM/relativity problem will require a radical revision of physics comparable to the changes that happened when relativity and QM were developed in the early 1900s. I don't see that as a philosophical change.
You may be correct, but I'm not talking about the fundamental issues in physics as logical errors. I'm talking about the fundamental principles of logic being in error. I assume physicists are logical, no? If not, then bingo! There's my answer. Now all I need to do is learn how physics got around logic and explain that to logicians how their fundamental principle(s) is flawed.
Quoting T Clark
I don't think physics proves or disproves logical principles either. I think physics uses logical principles to make physical proofs. I'm asking about the tool (logic), not the machine (physics) that is being worked upon.
Physics would be important to philosophy (the logical branch thereof) if a cadre returned from an assault on logic having found it to be wanting. Likewise, they would be important to philosophy (the logical branch thereof) if they returned with a sock the logicians had never found. In the latter case, the logician might simply say "I told you so." And that is true, they did. Be they did not prove it. The mode of travel can matter. I used to be jealous of those people who, after my long cognitive slog to a place, I find already there, having arrived on the wings of intuition. But then I remember I have found along my way; the truth is often counterintuitive. While others may wonder what took me so long, I’d rather arrive knowing what I don’t know. We may be in agreement; we may be in the same place. But if I must have company, I choose those who arrive by foot.
That is false. It is self-refuting. Note, that claim - that the burden of proof is upon the proponent - is itself something you (or someone) is proposing. And thus they have the burden of proof. And any attempt they make to discharge it, will involve making proposals. And thus it will never be discharged. That claim is therefore equivalent to claiming that nothing can be shown, including that nothing can be shown. Which is self-refuting. (I assume you have heard of this 'principle' from the internet - from a youtube video, or wikipedia or some such? That is, you've heard of it from wholly unreliable sources).
The basic principle of intellectual inquiry is that the burden of proof is on the one whose claim conflicts with appearances. It's known as the principle of phenomenal conservatism or sometimes the principle of credulity.
Note, it is not self-refuting, for it itself appears to be true. And thus we have reason to believe it is true and the burden of proof is on the person who thinks that principle is false.
But it means that when you say this:
Quoting James Riley
You are mistaken. The best and only evidence you can ever have that a proposition is true, is that it is either itself self-evident to our reason, or it is implied by something that is. Your parents, of course, are not Reason and thus when they say "because I say so" this does not constitute evidence in support of what they have said. (For an analogy: if I simply write an extra zero on my bank statement, that does not make me ten times richer. However, if the bank writes an extra zero on my balance, then I really am ten times richer).
I got the principle from a logic professor 40 years ago who taught me that logical argument places the burden of proof upon the proponent. This was followed by the practice of law based thereon, where the burden of proof is upon the proponent. The "someone" who proposed it is not me, or the professor, or the law. The "someone" who proposed it is logic itself, or more particularly logical argument. I didn't get it from the internet. In fact, the internet did not even exist when I got it.
Regardless, even if it were not a principle of logical argument, that would not in itself make it self-refuting. To be self-refuting it would have to be inconsistent. Placing the burden of proof upon the proponent is no more self-refuting than what appears to be a gentleman's agreement, without proof, regarding the law of identity or the law of contradiction. Logic makes those proposals, not me.
Quoting Bartricks
It would seem the "principle of phenomenal conservatism" or the "principle of credulity, or what "appears to be true", while not self-refuting, are certainly no more authoritative than the even more fundamental and credible principles of identity or non-contradiction. In fact, these principle you cite are weaker, in that they smack of anecdote and the idea that "because once, always." They, at their best, would be a corollary and further down the road even than the fundamentals. But I don't believe even logic would cite them for any starting point. Check that! Maybe it would if it was trying to distract, or hide from an assault on it's principles. Maybe a principle of logical argument is different from the basic principle of intellectual inquiry?
Similarly, the claim that nothing can be shown is like this: any attempt to show it to be true assumes its falsity.
Anyway:
Quoting James Riley
Yes it is, because our evidence that the principle of non-contradiction is true is that it appears to be. That is, our reason represents it to be. How would the principle of non-contradiction possibly have more rational authority than the principle of phenomenal conservatism?
I perceive two problems with this. First, if a statement is self-refuting it is inconsistent with the truth. Second, I believe there is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum or something like that. The fact nobody agrees with you about the rain matters naught to the truth of the matter asserted.
Quoting Bartricks
Because the latter is dependent upon subjective observation, while the former is based upon what logic would claim to be empirical truth ("A" cannot = "-A").
Night night.
Hi Yohan. Can you extrapolate on that for me. It sounds metaphysical, or like metaphysical realism. Maybe an example?
Where Logic says "X" and QM sees "Y", and where QM is a disciple of Logic, QM has a problem.
QM can continue to search for why "Y" is wrong, or QM can make Logic prove "X". After all, Logic is the proponent of "X" and therefor, by Logic's own rules, Logic has the burden of proof. So far, the best Logic has come up with is this:
""X" is self evident, and I can't prove a negative. You must not question me. Rather, you must continue trying to figure out why "Y" is wrong and you must use "X" to do it."
Here is another view that is possibly true, but self-refuting: there is no reason to believe anything.
Again, possibly true. But any attempt to defend it would undermine itself as to defend a view is to attempt to show that there is reason to believe it.
As to what you say about the principle of phenomenal conservatism - well, I do not follow you. What reason do we have to think the law of non-contradiction is true save it appearing to be?
And if that is true, howdoes that not demonstrate that its truth is even more basic?
I mean, a first storey is more basic than a second as you can't have the latter without the former. Well likewise the principle of phenomenal conservatism is more basic than the law of non-contradiction for we are not justified in believing the latter unless the former is true.
Yes. I think this is at the heart of this discussion.
@James Riley - is the failure to recognize the difference between reality and a representation of reality, i.e. logic, one of the logical errors you are talking about?
It is not self-refuting. If I say "1 apple plus 1 apple makes for 2 apples, but Bartricks disagrees" I have not said something self-refuting. The fact Bartricks disagrees with something reflects on Bartrick, not the fact. Otherwise, everything Bartricks disagrees with would be self-refuting. Quite the contrary.
Quoting Bartricks
Not true. Devils advocates defend views to defeat them. We did it in the law all the time.
Quoting Bartricks
The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental principle of logic which I have been calling out. I agree with you. Other than it's appearance, what proof is there that it is true? It is a basic, fundamental principle of logic whether it is true or not.
Quoting Bartricks
That is not logic. The fundamental principles of logic hold themselves out as truth, notwithstanding observation.
I still do not understand what your point is in respect of the law of non contradiction or any other law of logic for that matter. Our evidence they are true is that they appear to be. That isn't a problem.
And when things appear differently to different people?
I would think if everything appeared the same way to everyone people wouldn’t even argue.
This seems to just put the burden of proof on whoever is disagreeing with you (as they clearly conflict with what appears to you to be the case). Cheeky.
I'm not sure I understand this. My failure to understand may be due to definitions. Logical thought is a tool set used to aid in understanding reality. Where representations of reality are used, logical thought likewise applies to those representations. If there is a logical error in the tools themselves, then it is a failure of those tools to abide the standards which those tools impose upon everything in reality (or representations of reality) that they are utilized in working on.
Apparently that is not a problem for you. I think there is a philosophy for that, but I can't recall what it is. For others, like logical thought itself, they demand proofs beyond appearance.
The law of non-contradiction appears to be true. That is, the reason of most people represents it to be true. That's an appearance: a rational appearance.
It is precisely because of this that we understand that conflicting appearances cannot all be accurate. Indeed, to take some appearances to be conflicting is of a piece with taking their representative contents to be contradictory.
In this way we learn that one or other or both appearances are inaccurate.
Right now assuming you get into a conversation with someone to whom non-contradiction (or anything that seems the case to you) doesn’t appear to be the case. Is the burden of proof on them or on you?
They would say it’s on you (since you are contradicting their appearances) and you would say it’s on them (since they are contradicting your appearances)
Now what?
That is not my understanding of the law of non-contradiction. As I understand it, the law would merely state that a red hat cannot be a blue hat. The law of identity is that a red hat is a red hat and a blue hat is a blue hat. It matters naught what the definition of red is, or how red appears. All that matters is that whatever red is, it is red. It is not blue. X = X and X does not = -X.
You are asking, I think, for a justification for the laws of logic. Well, I have provided one: they appear to be true and it is a basic principle of intellectual inquiry that if something appears to be the case we are justified in believing it to be. And if you want a justification for that principle, you are asking to be shown reason to believe it, yes? Well, does it not appear to you that you have reason to believe it?
Perhaps you want to be shown that you have reason to believe what you have apparent reason to believe. But now your desire is confused or at least has no bearing on anything's being justified. For if you recognize that you have apparent reason to believe it, then you are already aware of a reason to believe it and you are simply wanting to be shown more of the same.
Since you are all about appearances, when QM appears to show a single thing to be in two different places at the same time, then it must be logical that it is so? What if that defies logic? What then? You have a fundamental principle of logic saying "X" and QM saying "Y", and yet "X" has never offered up a proof, other than appearances (and appearances are not proof), so why is the burden on "Y" and not "X"?
I think I'll go back to beating my head on Hegel. At least for a while.
First, a proof will consist of appearances. It was a point Descartes made. I can prove I exist. How? I appear to exist. And that appearance is so strong there is nothing I can think of that will raise a doubt about its accuracy.
Second, when appearances appear to conflict - that is, when their representative contents appear contradictory - we are default justified in believing that one or other or both are inaccurate. Why? Because the law of non-contradiction says so and it appears to be true to virtually everyone (and we cannot notice conflicts between appearances until we notice that the law of non-contradiction appears to be true).
The principle of phenomenal conservatism marks the beginning of intellectual inquiry. That the law of non contradiction appears to be true followed by the subsequent appearance of conflicting appearances is what generates questions about what is really the case. And that's the beginning of philosophy.
Appearances can be defeated or undercut and it is the on-going business of philosophical inquiry to defeat and undercut conflicting appearances in the most appearance respecting manner.
In dismissing appearances you do not just dismiss me, but Aristotle. Do you think that's wise?
You wouldn’t get into a conversation with someone to whom something appears differently from you? You read the parenthesis right? No you do that all the time.
So, who is the burden of proof on? Whose appearances (does it appear to you!) are the “standard” appearances that don’t need proving?
If it appears to me that x is true, but it appears to you that x is false, then both my view and yours conflicts with some appearances, yes?
So we now both have the burden of proof if we want to insist our view is the true one.
If, however, I form the view that as there is an appearance that x is true, and an equally strong appearance that x is false, therefore x is as likely true as false given this evidence, then I do not have the burden of proof, for now my view is in line with the appearances.
Are you saying logic is not a representation of reality? If it is, isn't failure to recognize the difference between reality and logic a logical failure?
We're probably digging to deep into this particular hole. It doesn't seem very productive to me.
I'm not saying that, but I will. Logic is not a representation of reality. It's a tool used to understand reality, no matter how reality might be represented. But even if it were a representation of reality, a failure to recognize that is not necessarily a logical failure. If a painting is a representation of reality, a failure to recognize the difference between reality and the painting is not the painting's failure.
Quoting T Clark
Agreed. I thank you for your time.
After thinking about it for a while, I figure I should have responded to your thoughts here. I did not, because I found them to be a circular tautology. "The rules is the rules because the rules work. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?" Let me try to address your post on the merits.
In my opinion, philosophy (and logic as a part thereof) is not reality but is, rather, a tool we use to help us understand and explain reality. Rules exist for that reason. I get that.
So you and I, both knowing the rules of chess, sit down to play a game. The pieces are all in place for the beginning of the game. As we stare at the board, settling our minds, and preparing to make the first move, one of my rooks, sua sponte, steps off the board one space.
You say "Hey! You can't do that!" to which I respond "Hey, I didn't do that!" To which you respond "Well, that's a violation of the rules! Put it back!" And I say "No, I'm going to stay here and try to figure out why that rook seems to have moved on it's own, apparently thinking the rules suck; I'm going see why the rules apparently don't apply to it. You go play chess with someone who wants to play be the rules."
This is not unlike the QM scientist staring at a red hat "here" that also appears to be over "there"; or a red hat that appears to have appeared simply because it was observed; or a red hat "here" that simultaneously influences a blue hat over "there" or because he otherwise observes something that appears to violate the fundamental rules of logic.
Now, he can try to bend reality to comply with the rules, or he can continue to recite a circular tautology to the effect "that can't be." Or, he could revisit the rules and see if they don't need to be tweaked to better help him understand reality.
But alas, when he revisits the rules and sees that the rules themselves don't stand up to a scrutiny using the rules own rules, then those rules should at least raise an eyebrow.
I perceived that T Clark and others at least understood the rules of logic were under attack. You, however, are off playing chess with those who play by the rules. I honestly don't think there is anything wrong with that. If a tool works for the project you are working on, you'd be a fool to not use it. But when you run into a wall (that which science currently and publicly struggles with) at least a few scientists should go back to the beginning and check out the foundation upon which they stand. If you chase the premises of logical argument far enough back to the very beginning, you find the fundamental laws, rules, principles or whatever you want to call them. Maybe they need a stress test. There are some wayward rooks in QM that apparently think the rules suck, or at least they don't apply to them.
This is not too far form the topic of An analysis of 'On Certainty' elsewhere in the fora.
And it is also a long way form the decidedly irrational anti-logic of your OP.
I stipulate to the anti-logic of my patent attack on logic, and it's failure to abide it's own logical principles, one of which I use to attack it. However, if it were "decidedly irrational", I'd like to see those who made the decision answer the attack. So far, crickets.
The rook is indeed not playing chess. And some of what we see in QM is apparently not playing by the rules of logic. That's the point.
I will take a look at "An analysis of 'On Certainty."
That's the upshot of the level of scepticism in the OP. It is self-denying.
I'm not arguing against argument. In fact, I'm using argument's own rules to ask argument to abide it's own rules.
Sometime ago I binged-watched a show call “The Queen’s Gambit.” In the show, this chess-playing phenom said something to the effect that her love of the game was based upon this confined little board with little pieces and rules and where she had control. It was like a little word. Now chess, like logic, has been seen as a tool one might use in the navigation of our messy reality. And, to a certain extent, I think that is correct. This phenom had an upbringing that was shy on social skills, yet she seemed to do alright navigating the mess. Maybe chess had something to do with that.
But whereas the board and the pieces are real, the rules are a construct we agree upon. So long as we abide those rules, the game works. If one party violates the rules, it all falls apart. There is a gentlemen’s agreement t abide.
I can’t imagine, however, how she would have dealt with a piece that stepped off the board, of its own accord, in violation of the rules. How would she, or even a QM phenom, deal with the reality (not the rule construct, but the messy reality) of a piece of reality apparently not abiding the rules? You can scream, or walk away, or deny the game, or make demands, etc. But your complaining means is all for naught. You can even point back at the rules, hands on hips, and huff. But that's just tautological.
That's not how it looks; but it must be what you take yourself to be doing, in order to be consistent.
In order to engage in an argument, there must be some shared background. Your OP seeks to deny this.
Beth learns rules from outside chess as the series progresses and she becomes comfortable with who she is and her story. There's not just one logic.
As stated, I understand that it is a principle of logical argument that the burden of proof is upon the proponent. Logic (or it's champions) set forth laws, rules or principles, the support for which seems to be "self-evident" or "a negative can't be proven" (in which case logic is based upon that which cannot be proven), or "we need to agree or we can't argue" (a tautology, like we can't play chess if we don't abide the rules of chess). The most persuasive of those is the "self-evident" claim. Nevertheless, I can't help but think that that which is "self-evident" would be capable of lesser proofs (and I don't mean anecdote, which logic itself finds to be in the nature of a fallacy). In short, I have not left off logic when I simply ask logic to provide a proof of it's submission.
Everything I've said to you, I have said before in this thread, to you or others. I have learned there comes a point in argument where the opposition must be called upon to properly articulate your point (even if they zealously disagree with it) in order for future argument to be constructive. In other words, I'm not even asking to agree with me, but if you can't even understand what I'm saying, then like a violation of the rules of chess, there is no sense playing. Now, that might be laid at my feat, as a poor teacher, unable to convey his thoughts. But I think not. At a certain point, it is incumbent upon the student to prove he understands what it being said, even if he disagrees. So, if you can come back and satisfactorily articulate my position, then we can proceed. If not, then we are wasting our time.
...Sam, quoting Monk.
The basic reply to your OP, by me and others, is that failure to accept non-contradiction undermines any further discussion.
Go there, if you like. I'll not be joining you. Obviously.
So what is the QM scientist to do when non-contradiction is contradicted? I guess he's left to reality while others play by artificial constructs.
I don't think I can help you any further. Have a think about what has been said.
Right. QM does not contradict itself. QM is reality. Rather, QM contradicts your law of non-contradiction.
Maybe you are too consumed by me, and your inability to grasp thoughts that are outside of your artificial rule metric.
So forget me. Here is something you should go think about: What is a QM scientist to do when reality shows him "X" here and "X' there at the same time? Or "X" only appearing here because the QM scientist saw it here? And if he had looked there, it would have been there? Or the QM scientist finding "X" here simultaneously, and without connection, affecting "Y" there? Each of these violate your fundamental principles of logic. He obviously can't look to you for "why this cannot be." For you will simply tell him he's not seeing reality. Poor guy. Hopefully he's smarter than me and will engage you and logic with reality, forcing you and logic to defend yourselves. I suspect you'll just tell him he's not seeing what he's seeing and to go back and put the rook back on the board. Yokie Dokey. He'll just have to keep watching it jump off the board, laughing in logic's face.
Make a faster than light communication system?
But yes, the LONC could be wrong. Or right and wrong at the same time. :up:
That's my thought.
I will. The essence of philosophy. I'd encourage you to step outside your box and see the mess.
It would probably take a change in cognition to know it, as opposed to just saying it.
When addressing the merits, instead of citing the rule for it's own authority, we might find that the rule of noncontradiction is not violated when thinking of "a quantum entity as an actual wave consisting of a superposition of all of the possible states that collapse to a point (particle) when detected." Walt Tucker. That is one explanation of how the rule is not violated. There are other issues (which might be likewise explained away), but we still haven't provided the proof of the rule of identity or non-contradiction.
Agreed. As we push the envelope further and further, we might just have to do that. But saying it before it's been done, or even before it can be done, does not mean it should not be said. It's weird how science fiction sometimes ends up as science fact. That's usually because of that dreaming, speculating and considering.
p & ~p ? q
If that don't convince you, you're not worth talking to.
Yeah, I pulled that off wiki a long time ago, and it's counterpart over 40 years ago. Again, with the circular reasoning and the tautology. It's not more impressive now than the first time you put it up. But hey, I think you think there is an audience out there impressed with your brilliance. Go for it.
It's not a proof, so much as a test.
And yet here you are talking to me.
Quoting Banno
It's not a proof or a test. That's the problem. It's a rule.
Which way you can move a rook is not a proof or a test. It's a rule.
Yep. Some people have calcified brains. They serve a function in human life.