On that the Laws of Logic are Properties of the Universe

How would you describe a property of the universe? I would say if there is any property of the universe, then that property would be reflected in all things within the domain of the universe. As we see the laws of motion and gravity within all things, we too see the work of the laws of logic. We always see things being themselves, and never things not being themselves. All physical things reflect the properties of the universe, and it is by observing many things that we have observed and described with great certainty the uniformity of nature in the laws of logic. You ask, why can we not measure logic? I answer, because the question we ask in different subjects, physical or logical, was different. In the subject of physics, we ask, how much, while in the laws of logic we ask, whether or not?. Physical laws that ask how much use numerical variables and produce numerical answers, and logical laws, which ask, "whether or not?" use binary variables and produce binary answers. However, consider the equation Delta G = Delta H minus T times Delta S, describing the relation between Gibbs Free Energy and the spontaneity of a chemical reaction, a law concerning physics. The variables are numerical in essence, but binary in that the question is only concerned with whether the variables are positive or negative, as the laws of logic are only concerned with whether the variables are true or false. The laws of logic and the laws of physics are not entirely different merely because they produce different types of answers. They produce different types of answers because they ask different types of questions. 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.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• law
• logic
• property
• universe

[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]

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.

[zarkoff45]

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

[muffin1102]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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."