You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

What is wrong with binary logic?

intrapersona October 08, 2016 at 05:17 7425 views 17 comments
Is it just a synonym for "in the box" or "constrained thought"? Or is the world true composed of opposites and there is no room for alternatives in an absolute sense?

Comments (17)

Barry Etheridge October 08, 2016 at 13:24 #25150
Yes and no questions? Really? :-}
jkop October 08, 2016 at 14:11 #25153
Reply to intrapersona

Do you mean 'bivalent logic'? There is also multivalent and paraconsistent logics.

Thoughts can be composed in many ways, and we can think about worlds composed in many ways, but they would be thoughts, not worlds.
wuliheron October 08, 2016 at 15:19 #25156
The fact that the world around us is analog rather than digital has been widely accepted for a long time and quantum mechanics have already been used to prove life is metaphorical rather than metaphysical. The problem is that digital logic inevitably leads to logical contradictions it can't resolve any better than to just deny something is possible. Digital logic, for example, insisted that the earth must be flat for thousands of years because, obviously, it can't be both flat and round! Analog can overcome these problems by simply assuming everything is context dependent and adapting to whatever the situation requires. An analog computer like the brain, for example, produces analogs or metaphors of whatever problem it is attempting to solve rather than insisting the evidence conform to the logic.

Digital logic is also horribly inefficient and just not viable when you start crunching the kinds of enormous numbers the brain routinely does, but that's just another way of saying that reality is analog because you can derive digital logic from analog, but not vice versa. The advantages of digital logic are that it is easier to do error correction and use a more brute force approach to problem solving which, for example, is why digital logic is used in computers when it takes up much more space on a chip and is much more inefficient. Manufacturers have been counting on the fact that the chips keep shrinking so fast they don't have to worry about its drawbacks, but are currently focusing much more on analog logic as Moore's Law is about to end up in the toilet.
Barry Etheridge October 08, 2016 at 16:25 #25163
Quoting wuliheron
Digital logic, for example, insisted that the earth must be flat for thousands of years because, obviously, it can't be both flat and round!


It has been the orthodox belief that the Earth is flat neither for thousands of years or thousands of seconds! The Flat Earth Society would have been considered just as weird in 2016 BC as it is today!
wuliheron October 08, 2016 at 16:29 #25165
Reply to Barry Etheridge Oh, how silly of me.
intrapersona October 09, 2016 at 02:03 #25214
Reply to jkop I'm having trouble defining the differences between them. Examples would help immensely.
intrapersona October 09, 2016 at 02:04 #25215
Quoting wuliheron
quantum mechanics have already been used to prove life is metaphorical rather than metaphysical


What do you mean by life is metaphorical? Life is a metaphor for what exactly?
Barry Etheridge October 09, 2016 at 12:04 #25316
Reply to intrapersona

Quantum mechanics proves anything and everything for this poster. I wouldn't trouble yourself.
wuliheron October 09, 2016 at 16:45 #25341
Reply to intrapersona A paradox is an example of a metaphor in that it has no clear identity. We are the belief makers, we give it all meaning, and in doing so create our own metaphors. Socrates used the metaphors of the memory of God and repeatedly proclaiming that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing.
_db October 09, 2016 at 16:53 #25344
Quoting Barry Etheridge
Yes and no questions? Really? :-}


I mean, that is binary, lol
jkop October 09, 2016 at 18:05 #25382
Reply to intrapersona
Unlike the world thoughts have the disjoint syntax of our language, they are easily detachable, and dependent on a network of things to think about etc The world, however, is continuous, non-detachable, and the whole of all things that exist independently of our thoughts about them.
Terrapin Station October 10, 2016 at 17:26 #25600
"Bivalent logic" as someone else pointed out. That's the name you'll run across more often in a philosophical milieu.

Anyway, "What's wrong with it?" Well, who said there's something wrong with it for us to wonder what's wrong with it in the first place? Some context would help. It's certainly useful in many contexts. In other contexts, a lot might be wrong with it. Like if we're trying to write poetry. It's not very useful for that in my opinion.
TheMadFool October 11, 2016 at 05:49 #25714
''If you're not with us, then you're against us'': G. Bush

As the above quote clearly demonstrates there's something fundamentally deficient in binary logic in the sense that it fails to capture the fine nuances of our world. This is classically expressed in the fallacy of the false dilemma.

andrewk October 11, 2016 at 06:52 #25719
Reply to TheMadFool Not at all. It is possible to define all of mathematics, including the continuum, using just what you refer to as binary logic. The GW Bush example has nothing to do with the fact that logic uses a True/False paradigm. It's to do with somebody assuming there are only two possibilities when in fact there are many more, possibly even an infinite number of them.
andrewk October 11, 2016 at 06:58 #25720
Reply to wuliheron Not silly. Almost everybody does it. I think when people refer to Flat Earthers they are really thinking of GeoCentrists, ie people who believe the Earth is the centre of the universe.

Genuine Flat Earthers are extremely difficult to find in any age.

I gave up on pointing the misnomer out a few years ago, because it's so common.

It lines up alongside references to the Dark Side of the Moon, which phrase people use thinking they are indicating a mysterious, unknowable place. Even Pink Floyd got this wrong. It's the Far Side of the Moon that is mysterious and was never seen by humans until the Apollo missions went there. And that Far Side is bathed in sunlight about 50% of the time.

Pedantry expostulation concluded.
Barry Etheridge October 11, 2016 at 12:12 #25744
Quoting andrewk
Even Pink Floyd got this wrong.


As the spoken section of Eclipse specifically includes "There is no dark side of the moon really." this assertion would appear to erroneous! In any case, 'dark' does not only mean 'not lighted' but includes such subtleties as 'unseen', 'hidden', 'obscured', 'arcane' etc. as in 'the dark arts', 'I saw through a mirror darkly', and, of course, 'dark matter'. It is therefore entirely appropriate to call that side of the moon which we never see 'dark' irrespective of the amount of daylight it enjoys.

But you're right about the flat Earth thing! (Y)
andrewk October 11, 2016 at 21:46 #25851
I hadn't noticed that statement in the spoken section. I'll go and listen for it. I'm relieved to learn that the Floyd did not make such a mistake.