Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-11-2014, 12:21 PM
Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
This is an age old concept and topic where even from some atheists I've met with near religious zeal to force me to conclude that logical absolutes are always true.

To be frank, I don't even think that the logical absolutes do the job of setting the framework to logic, let alone be considered true if they DID.

My reasoning for the idea that the laws of logic have no truth value is that you must employ logic to figure out that truth value, so to say that we can use logic to prove the foundations of logic's truth value is...well... circular. Sye loves saying this. But I think even he fails to apply a basic understand to how logic works. Inductive Logic has ALWAYS been about accepting an axiom and working out that axiom's implications. It gives us the ability to play games like chess, by accepting the rules (or axioms, I'd say) of chess, you are limited to actions that stay within the framework of chess.

It seems sensible that the foundations of logic are about accepting certain premises and working out the implications like we do with everything else. And just like the rules of chess, applying a truth value to a logical "law" is silly.

But, on to my main point: What the hell does "A is A" mean?? Better yet, what does any of the three foundations of logic mean, and how are they sufficient?

Not only can't I make sense of them as statements, I find that the real foundations of logic comes from accepting premises and working off of them consistently, and in order to do that you must have a firm ability to create and understand symbols. Understand the concept behind it and understanding the importance of tethering large ideas to small concepts and using this to fire off more complex ideas and so forth. I don't see how "A is A" means anything about identity except to call for consistency in premises and therefore the symbols that construct it.

I won't go further only because if I'm already on the wrong foot about certain things I'd like to be corrected. But if you baselessly claim that logic laws MUST BE TRUE without enumerating on it we're going to go nowhere. Thanks!

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
The logical absolutes are axioms; they provide a starting point

This goes over them pretty clearly:
http://logical-critical-thinking.com/log...absolutes/

Matt Dillahunty did a video about them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuRCF7h7FzE

In "A is A" you can substitute whatever you want for "A". A thing is what it is.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
Inductive reasoning may deal with any fantastic hypothesis. If argued correctly (no ambiguities or fallacies) a valid answer will be derived, We are dealing here with sentence construction, nothing else.

Deductive reasoning which observes observation, testing, peer evaluation etc, if logically presented will provide varying degrees of probability. This is of considerable pragmatic value.

As for the intrinsic values of concepts and attitudes this is an ethical issue. As you point out the expression of such will be limited to the mechanics of the process being used.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2014, 08:38 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
Axioms are used to define logical systems. They are "true" within the system (unless they result in a contradiction, in which case the system itself is invalid) and they can be used to derive other valid conclusions within the system. Logical absolutes to the extent they are useful in describing the real world are a set of axioms we are using at a given time to model the real world. We define these axioms in the hope that conclusions derived in our model of the real world from our set of axioms will also hold in the actual world.

It may be that our axioms do or do not line up with the real world and therefore our model of the real world matches or doesn't match the real world. All we can say with certainty is that our axioms match our experience, that they are constructed in a way to support a model of the real world that we think is reasonably representative of the real world, and that conclusions derived in our model do in fact tend to hold within the real world.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
25-11-2014, 09:15 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
(25-11-2014 08:38 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Axioms are used to define logical systems. They are "true" within the system (unless they result in a contradiction, in which case the system itself is invalid) and they can be used to derive other valid conclusions within the system. Logical absolutes to the extent they are useful in describing the real world are a set of axioms we are using at a given time to model the real world. We define these axioms in the hope that conclusions derived in our model of the real world from our set of axioms will also hold in the actual world.

It may be that our axioms do or do not line up with the real world and therefore our model of the real world matches or doesn't match the real world. All we can say with certainty is that our axioms match our experience, that they are constructed in a way to support a model of the real world that we think is reasonably representative of the real world, and that conclusions derived in our model do in fact tend to hold within the real world.

That's got it.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 02:17 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
(25-11-2014 09:15 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 08:38 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Axioms are used to define logical systems. They are "true" within the system (unless they result in a contradiction, in which case the system itself is invalid) and they can be used to derive other valid conclusions within the system. Logical absolutes to the extent they are useful in describing the real world are a set of axioms we are using at a given time to model the real world. We define these axioms in the hope that conclusions derived in our model of the real world from our set of axioms will also hold in the actual world.

It may be that our axioms do or do not line up with the real world and therefore our model of the real world matches or doesn't match the real world. All we can say with certainty is that our axioms match our experience, that they are constructed in a way to support a model of the real world that we think is reasonably representative of the real world, and that conclusions derived in our model do in fact tend to hold within the real world.

That's got it.

I totally agree with all this, I still don't quite understand how the whole "A is A" thing makes any sense. I also think that logical thinking and frankly any sort of coherent thinking requires accepting some axioms and working out their implications, consciously or otherwise. I mean, these axioms would have to be so intuitive that we don't actually have to teach them to invoke them when we grow up and learn how to think.

I've never seen a conversation about HOW these three axioms can serve as foundational and while I did give Dillahunty's video about logic a listen he doesn't sound definitive about logic either. I think over time we've just never given it much thought until christians came and tried to play off our ignorance with crap like TAG and "can you use your logic to prove your logic?" Frankly, if that's the case I wouldn't be surprised or mind it because idk what would you be able to learn from establishing the definitive foundations to thinking. But maybe this is all just personal feelings about the subject in general aha. I'm a math major but I definitely want to take philosophy if only to talk to another professor about this and hear their thoughts on the matter.

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 02:32 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
(26-11-2014 02:17 PM)le_bard Wrote:  
(25-11-2014 09:15 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  That's got it.

I totally agree with all this, I still don't quite understand how the whole "A is A" thing makes any sense. I also think that logical thinking and frankly any sort of coherent thinking requires accepting some axioms and working out their implications, consciously or otherwise. I mean, these axioms would have to be so intuitive that we don't actually have to teach them to invoke them when we grow up and learn how to think.

I've never seen a conversation about HOW these three axioms can serve as foundational and while I did give Dillahunty's video about logic a listen he doesn't sound definitive about logic either. I think over time we've just never given it much thought until christians came and tried to play off our ignorance with crap like TAG and "can you use your logic to prove your logic?" Frankly, if that's the case I wouldn't be surprised or mind it because idk what would you be able to learn from establishing the definitive foundations to thinking. But maybe this is all just personal feelings about the subject in general aha. I'm a math major but I definitely want to take philosophy if only to talk to another professor about this and hear their thoughts on the matter.

"A is A" or "A = A" is an axiom in our common systems of logic and mathematics; it is the Law of Identity.
It is a necessary axiom in the formal system.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 03:04 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
"A is A" within your world based on experiences that you have. It might also be the case that "A is A" my world, as we may have shared enough experiences in common. It might then also be the case that "A is not A" in my world, because the experiences that built my world differed slightly from yours. I may be able to convince you (change your world construct) by sharing new experiences with you, or you may be able to convince me.

There are common experiences that we humans all, or nearly all, share as our brains develop. I feel hunger, I cry, I get food. Perhaps Logic is born from experiences like these and wired into the brain, or perhaps logic is prewired in human brains. But non the less, what lead us to agree on "A is A" is a common set of experiences and a human definition of the system in question.

How are you defining A, what measurements are you using to describe A, what dimensions (space, time, other), etc? I could simply tell you that it is not true that "A is A" because one A comes before "is" and the other after "is". And you'd tell me I'm over thinking it. and you'd be right, are you?

"Spirituality was born to help humans with their mere existence." - i made it up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 03:27 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
(26-11-2014 03:04 PM)lotsolint Wrote:  And you'd tell me I'm over thinking it. and you'd be right, are you?

Yes. A is A. A thing is what it is. You might have a different opinion about any given A than I do, and we may disagree about what A actually is, but whatever A objectively is, it remains A.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 03:37 PM
RE: Logical Absolutes: let's try it again
(26-11-2014 03:27 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 03:04 PM)lotsolint Wrote:  And you'd tell me I'm over thinking it. and you'd be right, are you?

Yes. A is A. A thing is what it is. You might have a different opinion about any given A than I do, and we may disagree about what A actually is, but whatever A objectively is, it remains A.

Sure, but that a thing is what it is arises not from the thing itself but from our definition of "is". And so there is nothing objective about it, other than in the most trivial assumption that yes, existence exists.

Why some people get so hot and bothered about such a triviality, I will never understand. One cannot conclude anything from a tautology.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: