Another case for something beyond logical existence
It is inherent in our truth tables that we configure a statement to be either true or false, but it seems that this might have certain exceptions, especially in conditionals.
For example, the commonly held tradition when faced with a conditional in which the antecedent never occurs or is 'false' is to hold that the conditional is automatically 'true'. So for example, if we have a conditional in which we say 'If it rains tomorrow (p), I will go for a jog (q).' In the event of the nonoccurrence of it raining tomorrow (p), then the entire conditional is considered true.
But it seems that from a certain view such a conditional would neither be true nor false. This appears to be the case in that the truth or falsity of a statement can only be determined by analysis of its whole meaning, but since the antecedent never occurs, it couldn't be said whether such a conditional, taken as a whole, is true or not.
This is because the consequent depends on the antecedent for its truth-value, in that the consequent of jogging is meaningful and relevant only insofar as a precondition is met in the antecedent that it rains tomorrow. Thus, if it doesn't rain tomorrow, the very truth-value and relevance of the consequent seems to be drastically diminished. As such, the whole of the statement is no longer determined and seems to rather be cast into a 'neutral' or undetermined relation to truth.
So, two questions:
1. How does one reconcile Being and Becoming (Poetic got me to thinking about that in another thread)?
2. Does the Kantian Metaphysical paradigm " all events must have a cause" fit into the category of something beyond reason and logic?
For example, the commonly held tradition when faced with a conditional in which the antecedent never occurs or is 'false' is to hold that the conditional is automatically 'true'. So for example, if we have a conditional in which we say 'If it rains tomorrow (p), I will go for a jog (q).' In the event of the nonoccurrence of it raining tomorrow (p), then the entire conditional is considered true.
But it seems that from a certain view such a conditional would neither be true nor false. This appears to be the case in that the truth or falsity of a statement can only be determined by analysis of its whole meaning, but since the antecedent never occurs, it couldn't be said whether such a conditional, taken as a whole, is true or not.
This is because the consequent depends on the antecedent for its truth-value, in that the consequent of jogging is meaningful and relevant only insofar as a precondition is met in the antecedent that it rains tomorrow. Thus, if it doesn't rain tomorrow, the very truth-value and relevance of the consequent seems to be drastically diminished. As such, the whole of the statement is no longer determined and seems to rather be cast into a 'neutral' or undetermined relation to truth.
So, two questions:
1. How does one reconcile Being and Becoming (Poetic got me to thinking about that in another thread)?
2. Does the Kantian Metaphysical paradigm " all events must have a cause" fit into the category of something beyond reason and logic?
Comments (30)
Kantian epistemological philosophy is predicated exclusively on reason and logic, of which “all events must have a cause” is the foremost rendering of it a priori. So, no, the Kantian “all effects must have a cause” does not fit into a category of something beyond reason and logic. Truth be told, I can’t imagine anything beyond reason and logic. Even the alleged “transcendental illusion” is itself reason and logic, however misguided it may be.
Nevertheless, I’m not a logician per se, so I wonder about this conditional stuff. If it rains tomorrow I will go for a jog may be true, but if it doesn’t rain tomorrow, what prevents me from going for a jog anyway? What is it about the rain that if there isn’t any I can’t go for a jog?
The cause/effect proposition and negation I understand, insofar as any effect must have a cause and if there are no effects no cause can be supposed. But the rain thing doesn’t seem to be the same kind of proposition.
Hey MW, thanks for chiming-in... .
First things first, I don't believe you are correct there. The Kantian Metaphysical statement of 'all events must have a cause' was one of the hallmarks of his Critique. That is because the meaning of those words is a synthesis of a priori and natural phenomena; thus his infamous synthetic a priori. (Most all physical theories involve synthetic judgements.)
So, using logic, how does one configure the truth value of 'all events must have a cause'?
Hey Tim, what I mean is the whole of the synthetic a priori statement is no longer determined and seems to be cast into a 'neutral' or undetermined relation to truth.
And now Tim got there first; I also wish a clarification of.....what he said.
I am going to allow you the chance to notice the very specific qualifier in my comment, which should permit you to better understand its validity.
Okay, put succinctly, reword the statement 'all events must have a cause' to validate its truth value.
What am I missing, such that you would say yes, but I would say no?
Conditionals really aren't meant as natural language if-then statements.
Sorry....that flew right over my head. Are you asking me to reword the statement “ all effects must have cause” to validate its truth value? I don’t know how to do that, because as stated, it’s negation is a contradiction, so its truth value is given by itself.
As I said, I ain’t no logician. The only logic I concern myself with, are the Aristotelian laws of thought, to which of course, the cause/effect proposition is a prime example.
You proceed by understanding the conditional truth table as the conditional truth table. Just take it for what it is.
I wasn't saying something without context, so that I'd say it about any and every arbitrary thing.
Specifically with formal logic, it's important to not try to translate things like conditionals into natural language in order to grasp/remember the truth tables, because they don't work well with conventional natural language semantics. The first post in this thread is a good example why.
By this I understand you to mean the conditional “if p then q” does not translate into natural language. If so, I agree, for formal logic is empty of content.
Is that what you are saying?
Yes--as in the first post, where there's an attempt to compare it to "If it rains tomorrow, then I will go jogging."
Ok, good on me!! YEA!!!
Still, don’t we need conventional language for truth tables to have any meaning? I understand logical truisms to be guides for rational thought, but we still need to quantify that guide, do we not?
You don't need the formal logical structures in natural language.
You do need to talk "around" them in natural language. We need to be able to say, "This is a conditional" for example.
As tools, they've turned out to be most useful for computer science applications, probably. Logic gates for example.
Ahhhh, yes. The inevitable bane of subjectivity.
Good enough for me. Which is indeed fortunate, because I do it all the time.
Thanks.
No worries Mww, it's all good. I'm far from an expert logician. Let me find another way to broach the concern and I'll respond accordingly. In the meantime, another way of saying what I said in the OP, is basically LEM.
Beyond that, [other] unresolved paradox's remain quite a mystery...
Thank you Tim. It's a huge discussion (Heidegger, Plato, cognitive science, physics, et al.) but here's a simple first take:
What is the difference between being and becoming? Is any form of being not a “becoming”? Can one “be” in a static/incomplete or static/complete sense?
We are beings within space-time, thus it follows that our being is a becoming.
How can logic or mathematics resolve the static state of existence and Being(?)
And derivative examples include:
Paradox of:
1. Self-reference
2. Contradiction
3. Infinite regress
4. Half-truth's
And so on.
Would you need examples of those?
( I'd be happy to provide some, please advise.)
Hey Tim...all this talk about procreation on the forum got me to thinking about the old (abortion) 'personhood' debate viz Being and becoming. This also concerns the OP as it relates to the unknown, neutral, or otherwise indeterminant things, from Wiki:
"The beginning of human personhood is the moment when a human is first recognized as a person. There are differences of opinion as to the precise time when human personhood begins and the nature of that status. The issue arises in a number of fields including science, religion, philosophy, and law, and is most acute in debates relating to abortion, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and fetal rights. "
"Traditionally, the concept of personhood has entailed the concept of soul, a metaphysical concept referring to a non-corporeal or extra-corporeal dimension of human being. However, in modernity, the concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity, personhood, mind, and self have come to encompass a number of aspects of human being previously considered to be characteristics of the soul.[1][2] With regard to the beginning of human personhood, one historical question has been: when does the soul enter the body? In modern terms, the question could be put instead: at what point does the developing individual develop personhood or selfhood?[3] "
So Tim, back to being and becoming, I asked myself whether Being is a noun or verb, and it lead me to time dependent things:
Existence is dependent on time
Human Beings exist
Therefore, Human Beings are dependent on time (for their existence)
And so one question becomes, if existence is a noun, and to exist is a verb, how is it reconciled?