On that the Laws of Logic are Properties of the Universe

[zarkoff45]

Are you familiar with "fuzzy logic"? It's not just true/false, it's numeric probability.

[Paulomycin]

Fine. Then either you can account for the laws of logic or you cannot. You describe it as a law, which is to say it is an absolute. Yet reason requires a reasoner. Logic requires a logician. If these abstracts are indeed transcendent absolutes, they require a transcendent source which is capable of the same.

[muffin1102]

I don't fully understand:

A logician, as I understand one, does not create or write logic, only applies it. But this is just semantics.

Logic does not require a logician; The laws of logic do not need to be recognized or understood by a logician for what they describe to be true. There are truths that we don't know of now, as there were in the past; we can't say they're true only because we've found them.

[Paulomycin]

Muffin: [The laws of logic do not need to be recognized or understood by a logician for what they describe to be true.]

This is the "stolen car" argument. Your use of reason = recognition of the laws of logic. Saying "it just is" would be a question-begging fallacy.

[muffin1102]

All laws are forms of induction. I've already admitted the induction fallacy; that's not to say that induction isn't true.

[muffin1102]

Maybe you're saying that the presence of logic suggests intelligence? If I showed you a 1000 green apples, when there are red apples to show, you assume that I'm deliberately handing you certain apples because of their color. Though I don't think consistency suggests intelligence: its always cold in the winter, though I don't think God's making it so. I know seasons are caused by the angle of Earth's axis, though I don't know the "cause" of the laws of logic, though I may still apply them.

[Paulomycin]

Not "suggests," but rather requires/demands an intelligence of some kind. "Apples" is begging for context. "If" = speculation. I am asserting what I am certain of. "Consistency" is not the sum total of Boolean logic. Even if you don't know the nature of the cause of logic, you must concede that logic necessitates a logician.

[muffin1102]

I still don't understand.

[Paulomycin]

0:42-0:48 The question "how much" assumes that something exists (or is) at the outset. Thus, the questions are not fundamentally different. One assumes something is and steps out according to theory, while the other questions what is.

[muffin1102]

correct; qualitative and quantitative data are fundamentally identical. I was arguing against the statement, "the laws of logic and the laws of physics have different origins because 'true' and 'false' cannot be measured quantitatively, like heat and mass can."

[Paulomycin]

0:32 Actually, we can measure bivalent logic on an empirical scale. You're also forgetting spontaneity means that the cause is simply undefined; not that a cause is ruled out. You even used symbols in your assertion to boot. 1:38-1:48 then makes a universal relation between physics and laws of logic, which is of course Musickle's assertion; not yours. Physics is dependent on laws of logic. They are not co-equal as you assert.

[muffin1102]

I would call them the same;

"However, both reflect the uniformity of nature and the principles of the universe because they both truly describe those things that reflect the properties of the universe."

Both the laws of physics and the laws of logic are universally supported. I would say they were properties of the universe, or statements that were true in all parts of the universe.