It says reasonable precisely because reason does not reduce to mere logic. Otherwise it would have said logical. — Pantagruel

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/reasonable

Synonyms & Antonyms of reasonable
1) according to the rules of logic
his answer is perfectly reasonable

Seems to me that it could have said logical and still meant reasonable.

There must've been a time in your life when you put something in your mouth and immediately spat it out. — TheMadFool

I don't understand. Are you saying that there are times in our lives where we do things without having an experience? Are you saying that you spat out something in your mouth for no reason at all?

Pain is necessary for our survival for it's the only means by which we detect harm/injury. That doesn't mean that a different method of detecting harm doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

Again, what does survival mean? Why would it only apply to carbon-based systems and not silicon-based systems? Seems to me that you have a limited scope/definition of life and survival - an anthropomorphic one.

Au contraire. It was a perfectly valid choice of a dialectical problem. Itwas never intended to be conclusive, only illustrative (as I have repeatedly pointed out, yet you inexplicably refuse to acknowledge). — Pantagruel

:lol: What did you attempt to illustrate if not the conclusive nature of dialectic logic? Or are you saying that your illustration is just scribbles and isn't about anything?

"Dialectical thinking refers to the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most economical and reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory information" — Pantagruel

Which supports what I said here:

This is akin to what I have said before in that we can have different views of the same thing, but we have to be careful that we aren't confusing our views with what our views are of. In discussing opposing views, we are discussing our views, not what our view is of. To get at what our views are of, we have to find similarities between our views, not differences between our views.

The fact that our views may differ says nothing about what our views are about, but more about ourselves - the viewers. — Harry Hindu

See how it says "reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory information".

What does it mean by "reasonable" if not "logical" in the classical sense?

What does "seemingly contradictory" mean if not that it appears contradictory but actually isn't once you reconcile the differences using reason (classical logic)? So it seems to me that classical logic is necessary for dialectic logic to work.

Certainly your counter-argument was applicable, and amplified the issue. In doing so, you thereby participated in the process of dialectical reasoning, and gave a strong argument yourself for the use of many-valued (versus dyadic) logic. — Pantagruel

This doesn't fit with what you just quoted. You and I have opposing views, that have yet to be reasonably reconciled. So we haven't yet engaged in any dialectic logic because you don't want to reasonably reconcile our opposing views. You just want to go off-topic and say that I don't understand, or that I'm not grasping it, as if dialectic logic has this nature that I'm not grasping and that my view of it is false, not some degree of truth of it. You keep contradicting yourself with every post.

they do not restrict the number of truth values to only two: they allow for a larger set W of truth degrees. — Pantagruel

Seems to support what I said, not what you said. Bravery comes in degrees, not on or off / true or false. Some are braver than others. Tell me, Pantagruel, what room does the word "braver" have in your example? You seem to say that the word would be meaningless if you were to apply dialectic logic to bravery. So it seems that either you have the wrong idea about dialectic logic or the wrong idea about bravery, and how and when to apply dialectic logic (it doesn't seem to work for bravery), and it is reflected by your example

What I find interesting is that there can only be truth degrees, but no degrees of falsity? So dialectic logic is a way for everyone to be right? How convenient. How religious.

Well, it would lighten the burden for us but the robot probably won't make it through the day. — TheMadFool

You keep contradicting your OP in your attempt to argue for the sake of arguing with me.

Pain is a detector of sorts that alerts living things of potentially life-threatening stimuli. This pain detecting mechanism is wired to responses that aim to relieve/avoid/prevent pain; ultimately saving the organism from grievous injury and death. We could, in a way, say that pain is necessary for survival. — TheMadFool

So it seems to me that pain is necessary for survival. What is survival if not the continued existence of the thing as a primary result of the thing's own functioning?

When I think how to program a robot to avoid harm, it seems much easier, and more efficient, to program it too react to harm done rather than react to every potential harm that could be done. For the latter, you'd have to know every possible way the robot could be harmed for it to be programmed to avoid it. Why not just program the robot to react only when damage is done and the pain would be an indicator of how bad the damage is and where it is located.

Or else you simply failed to grasp it because it doesn't fit in your procrustean perspective.. — Pantagruel

No, that isnt the case. What is the case is that you see the world in black and white and you often confuse your black for white and vice versa.

It's possible to construct a robot with sensors tailored to prevent injury to the robot. The robot isn't conscious like we are but even without it, it can look after itself reasonably well. Surely, a physical system sans the consciousness can perform orders of magnitude better. — TheMadFool

What are you doing?

You just contradicted your OP:

Pain is a detector of sorts that alerts living things of potentially life-threatening stimuli. This pain detecting mechanism is wired to responses that aim to relieve/avoid/prevent pain; ultimately saving the organism from grievous injury and death. We could, in a way, say that pain is necessary for survival. — TheMadFool

The question is whether or not there is some universally applicable reliable method for determining which opinion is true when we find ourselves being presented with conflicting opinions about the same things. — creativesoul

Like I said to Pantagruel. If our opinions are conflicting, then how do you know that our opinions are of the same thing?

You stated "logic". I answered that logic alone is inadequate for determining which conflicting opinion is true.

Now you're invoking a philosophical position called "empiricism" and adding it to logic alone, as if to say logic and empiricism are enough - when used in conjunction with one another - to tell which conflicting opinion is true. I'm still objecting to that for it's not true. Logic and empiricism are inadequate. They are not capable of being used as a means to discriminate between true and false claims.

So, in effect you're changing your answer, and/or moving the goalposts. I could object on those grounds, but that would look like a hollow victory, and I'm not interested in winning. I am interested in shedding some much needed light upon an everyday problem.

If speaker A says "We should re-open the economy" and speaker B says "We should not re-open the economy" we have ourselves a real life everyday example to discuss.

So...

Tell me how logic alone can discriminate between which of these two statements is true, if either is and exactly how logic determines that much.

I'll tell you how it cannot, even when - especially when - accompanied by empiricism. — creativesoul

If you're asking if you can apply logic to ethical questions, then no. There is no such thing as an objective morality. When it is right to open an economy is when individuals feel safe in going out in public, and that can vary from individual to individual. So it seems to me that you are attempting to answer an unanswerable question, or attempting to answer a subjective question as if it had an objective answer.

So, you tell me creativesoul, what other methods are there besides logic to determine what is true? It seems to me that you used logic in your post to attempt to show how logic is inadequate. In showing that something is inadequate, does it make sense to use the very thing that you claim is inadequate to show how it is inadequate? :roll:

Not at all. I am merely pointing out that it exists, in contrast with your claim that everything reduces to true and false. Cheers. — Pantagruel

But you aren't merely pointing out that it exists. You attempted to show an example of it's use and failed miserably. In pointed out that it exists, you are pointing out a truth, and even provided (what you thought) is the nature of it's existence.

In doing my own research, there is nothing about dialectic logic that implies that it "transcends the true/false dyad of traditional logic". Even your own link seems to imply that there is an underlying truth in our opposing views. This is akin to what I have said before in that we can have different views of the same thing, but we have to be careful that we aren't confusing our views with what our views are of. In discussing opposing views, we are discussing our views, not what our view is of. To get at what our views are of, we have to find similarities between our views, not differences between our views.

The fact that our views may differ says nothing about what our views are about, but more about ourselves - the viewers.

:rofl: So, had I said, "if two objects strike each other and then the one, identified as p, having a mass m moves at an acceleration a" then the force acting on p is F = 2 * m * a? — TheMadFool

I don't see what's so funny, unless it's your silly imaginary universe you're laughing at. Is your imaginary universe funny?

If two objects strike one object, what happens?

Do all the objects involved have mass?

Are any objects moving? If so, at what velocity. Remember that velocity is relative.

Are these not all mathematical questions that I'm asking you about the objects in your universe that you claim is non-mathematical? And these questions need to be answered before you even get to F=m*a

That's because I am capable of dialectical reasoning.

If A mans his post in the face of an attack, then A is brave.
But A can man his post for a while, but abandon it when the fighting becomes too fierce.
So A is both brave and not-brave. — Pantagruel

Huh? :brow:

No, no, Pantagruel. This just means that bravery comes in degrees, not on or off.

Haven't we already been over this?

To say that one is both brave and not-brave just makes bravery meaningless. Bravery cannot be brave and not-brave (law of non-contradiction). If this were the case, then how do we know we are talking about the same thing when we discuss "bravery"?

I asked that question of you before in the other thread, and your response was another contradiction.

So, it seems to me that you think dialectic logic is the solution to everything. It seems that your use of dialectic logic is a bit religious, as if that is the type of "logic" that is used to escape the truth of solutions that you don't like.

I guess the whole point is that there are scenarios where the true/false (binary) state is inadequate. Even in physics, particles can be in more that one state simultaneously, it's what makes quantum computing possible. So it seems that there are empirical conditions in which the true/false dyad breaks down. Nature, it seems, never learned boolean logic.

So in terms of the OP, can we achieve a mutual understanding such that both your notion, that logic is foundational, and my notion that logic transcends the boolean form, co-exist? — Pantagruel

There are never scenarios where the true/false (binary) state is inadequate. To say that there is, is to deny the law of non contradiction, but to deny the law of non contradiction actually makes use of it, so you end up defeating your own argument.

The problem isn't the logic, it is the premise that everything is black and white, like bravery.

The rules of correct inference(logic) cannot tell us whether or not some statement or other is true. If the aim is to determine which of two competing statements is true, then logic is of no help here. It can, however, be used to establish whether or not a statement has been arrived at by virtue of following those rules, if we know the particular kind of logic being used. Logic can help us to determine if statements are reasoned.

Typically, logical statements are held to be better(more reliable) than those that are not arrived at via logical means, however, a statement/opinion can be both valid(a logical statement/conclusion that follows the rules of correct inference) and false.

Logic alone is utterly inadequate for the task at hand. — creativesoul

Well sure, empiricism is just as necessary as rationality, if that is what you mean. If not, then I would encourage you to give examples of where logic/empiricism, alone is inadequate. We can make claims all day, but if you aren't willing to provide examples that can falsify my statements, then it seems that we are at an impasse.

Sorry, are you saying we shouldn't be discussing how to resolve conflicts of opinion or that we should be? I take the latter view - do you agree?

Note. I am here following my own stricture of trying to establish some common ground. — unenlightened

You SAY that, unenlightened, but then your concept of "discussing how to resolve conflicts of opinion" involves bringing politics into a discussion that doesn't involve politics in order to make personal attacks on the person you've disagreed with politically in other discussions.

What you do is different than what you say, so what am I suppose to believe?

So if the article had stated "black person" it would be a racist thing? Or if he was described as a black, fat, stuttering, shy, ugly, young man, we are to investigate whether there is a possibility they just didn't like shy people? — Benkei

So, if the article said that "black people" and it showed data that blacks of both sexes and all age groups were being rounded up, then yes you would certainly have good evidence that racism is systematic. However, that isn't what the data shows. What is it about young black men that distinguishes them from the behavior of black women, black children, or black elderly?

LNC doesn't give you a logic by itself. It says very little about valid inferences; or plausibility of claims; or evidentiary status; it just tells you not to believe something and its negation at the same time. This is nowhere near enough. — fdrake

Sure it does. It basically mandates that the opposite of true is false. It is the root of all philosophical conclusions. If you keep asking, "why?", it basically comes down to, "because it is.", and something cannot be something that it isn't.

I thought we were supposed to be talking about the topic at hand? — Harry Hindu

Oh. I'm glad we agree. — unenlightened

Yeah, but not on the topic at hand, because you decided to engage in ad hominem political attacks rather than defend your statements on the topic at hand.

If we are talking about interpretation one, we could basically stick "I think" in front of everything that everybody says, and it will always be true. But why would we ignore the external referents of propositions in this way? — Pantagruel

I find it very strange that you don't see your own presuppositions of truth in every sentence that you make - that every statement you make is about how things are - from what dialectical logic is to what your thoughts are.

That's right Harry, I forgot, there's no conflict of opinion in politics is there? — unenlightened

I thought we were supposed to be talking about the topic at hand?

People talk to each other - this is a pattern. However they maybe talking gibberish - this is chaos. I can't explain this any better. You'll have to reread my post and come back with better points. — TheMadFool

I don't see how you could be saying that people are talking to each other if they are "talking" gibberish. This is a contradiction. You need to come back with better arguments.

So, "one" in if "one" object of mass m (kg) has an acceleration of a (m/s^2) then the force acting on it F = m * a is central to the quantitative nature of the statement? — TheMadFool

Sure, because it's not two or three, etc. It's basically saying:

(n * mass) * a = F

where n = the number of objects.

I'm using your definition of "chaos". Does that include complexity? — TheMadFool

I thought we agreed to use this definition:

I agree completely with you that chaos is the absence/lack of patterns. We'll begin from there. — TheMadFool

but then you went about using a different definition - the one that refers to complexity, which I showed. Maybe you should be the one that re-reads posts, not me.

I would like to suggest to you, in relation to the topic we are supposed to be discussing, that this conflict cannot be resolved, because no genuine communication is taking place. You might as well argue with Trump, because you are a a very bad person, and very illogical, and you are dealing with a very stable genius. — unenlightened

The topic we are supposed to be talking about isn't a political one. You might want to remove those politically partisan glasses you have on.

Even if we allow that it is trivially true that my statement is really my statement, you asked merely if there was any logic that doesn't presuppose true and false. I merely pointed out that dialectical logic transcends the true-false simpliciter dyad. I'm prepared to acknowledge that it is always true that I have made any statement I have made. Are you prepared to expand the concept of modal logic beyond the scope of true and false? — Pantagruel

Just read the first sentence in the link you provided. It presupposes some truth.

In making your statement you are presupposing the truth that "dialectical logic transcends the true-false simpliciter dyad".

Your argument is self-defeating.

What laws does the logic you're talking about follow? — fdrake

The law of non-contradicton.

Thus the answer, without discussion, "Logic." partakes of this authoritarian attitude. One might suppose that reputable logicians have never been known to disagree. Yet we surely know that this is not the case, and so the word becomes nothing more than a stick to beat one with. — unenlightened

Logic, like any other process, puts out what you put in. If you put in false premises, you will get false conclusions.

Logic also helps you to determine what to put in. Appeals to popularity, authority, and the genetic fallacy are all logical fallacies. So it seems to me that one kind of logic not being applied appropriately has a detrimental effect on the rest of your types of logic that you might use.

The statement is not about me, it is about dialectical logic. You are conflating the reference of the statement with its origin. Smacks of the genetic fallacy. Dialectical logic can be many-valued. — Pantagruel

Of course it is. It is about what you think:

I think dialectical logic transcends the simple true-false dyad of traditional logic. — Pantagruel

It even presupposes that thinking exists and that you think things.

I think dialectical logic transcends the simple true-false dyad of traditional logic. — Pantagruel

Does this statement presuppose some truth about what you think, and that you think?

It seems to me that you are agreeing that how we use language is the problem.

The apparent problem is that “the grass being wet is a necessary condition for it to be raining”, which is supposed to mean the same thing as “if it is raining then the grass is wet”, sounds superficially like the grass has to be wet first. — Pfhorrest

In a deterministic universe effects are just as necessary of a condition of their causes as causes are a necessary condition of their effects. The difference between them is spatial-temporal.

Sounds like wet grass (the effect) is dependent upon the initial condition of it's raining (the cause) - and that wet grass will come after the fact that it is raining.

That’s why I said “IF it can’t be true...”. For the reasons you mention, it could be true that it is raining and the grass is not wet, so the grass being wet is not in fact a necessary condition of it being raining. But IF it were... — Pfhorrest

Sure. I could put a tarp over my lawn and then it would be raining but the grass wouldn't be wet. Sounds causal to me. If I can insert some element into the process to prevent what we claimed was a necessary condition for something else, or show that the effect (wet grass) isn't necessarily the result of it raining (it could be condensation, or someone is watering their grass), then obviously rain isn't a necessary condition of wet grass. It would simply be a matter of misusing/misinterpreting words.

If you're asking if I think that there is any kind of logic that isn't presupposed by every sentence and every thought, then no.

If you are asking if I think that there is any logic that doesn't presuppose that there is such a thing as true and false, then no.

So if the article had stated "black person" it would be a racist thing? Or if he was described as a black, fat, stuttering, shy, ugly, young man, we are to investigate whether there is a possibility they just didn't like shy people?

Funny guy! — Benkei

Show me the quote you are referring to from which this line of thinking would follow. I just don't see it, so you must be assuming more than what I have said, just as SLX assumes more than what the data they provided is showing.

I don't see where your post disagrees with what you quoted, so I take it as an agreement that:

logic is presupposed by every sentence and every thought. — Harry Hindu

I mean, you entire post presupposes some truth.

you’re propagating poor advice — I like sushi

What qualifies as poor advice is subjective, and one person should not be determining what is poor or good advice for any other individual.

Think about all the advice on these forums, like that there are no other minds, and the effect that advice might have on someone else's behavior, or that someone feels like the opposite sex and goes to a doctor to get body parts severed and holes inserted, after which the patient claims, "It worked for me!"

It seems to me that if we let schizophrenics read posts on this forum, who knows what they might get out of what was said and then go do. Is that then the writer of the post's fault if they go hurt themselves or someone else?

Personally, I don't know anyone that smokes pot that then becomes a threat to others or even themselves. For most, it invokes feelings of acceptance and open-mindedness. Rastafarians sometimes refer to it as "wisdom weed".

From a Libertarian standpoint, it should be legal because it shouldn't be up to others to decide what works for me, as long as what works for me isn't taking away what works for others.

Logic presupposes truth. — creativesoul

This is a strange response considering it's the TLDR version of 's post and you said,

Ah drake...

That deserves permanent preservation!

Brilliant. Beautiful. Clear. Concise. Germane. Practical.

The agreement resonated within while reading. Literally... a visceral affect/effect.

Thank you. My respect for you has just increased exponentially. — creativesoul

Anyway, logic is presupposed by every sentence and every thought. Even by doubting the laws of logic, you’ve affirmed them, as thinking that something “might be false” presupposes that there’s such a thing as “true” and “false” in the first place.

I agree completely with you that chaos is the absence/lack of patterns. We'll begin from there. — TheMadFool

Ok.

1. There is a pattern, a nonmathematical one, in the way the earth interacts with objects that are let go in the air - they always fall. This pattern is called free fall. Call this pattern X.

2. There is another pattern, a mathematical one, in free fall as discovered by Galileo: the distance an object falls is directly proportional to the square of the time spent in falling. Call this pattern Y.

You can see, quite clearly, pattern Y is a pattern in pattern X and pattern X is NOT pattern Y. Keep this in mind. — TheMadFool

Yes, but is the fact that a pattern exists at all in Universe A indicative that Universe A is not chaotic?

How much chaos vs. order has to exist for a Universe to qualify as chaotic?

Another thing I wanted to mention. Here's another law you're familiar with: if "one" object of mass m (kg) has an acceleration of a (m/s^2) then, the force acting on it is F = m * a. Does the "one" in the sentence that states the law make the law quantitative? By your logic "yes" but as a matter of fact the correct answer is "no". Similarly the "one" in the universe A's law, "if one object is struck by another object, the struck object will move" doesn't make the law quantitative. — TheMadFool

Yes, but is the fact that you can refer to a number of objects in Universe A and how many are part of the process that we are talking about (falling bodies, and a falling body has to be falling relative to something else) indicative that Universe A is quantitative?

How much non-math vs. math has to exist for a Universe to qualify as non-mathematical?

Now, since pattern X is not pattern Y, it is completely possible for pattern X to be present (no chaos = free fall ) and pattern Y to be absent (chaos = there is no mathematical relationship between the distance an object falls and the time it takes to fall) without contradiction for one is a pattern and the other is the pattern in that pattern - two entirely different things . This is exactly what's the case with universe A which has the nonmathematical pattern, "if struck, move", which you were so kind to point out to me (thanks), but lacks the mathematical pattern "if one object moving at velocity w, at an angle x, strikes another object, the struck object will move at a velocity y at an angle z." Let's call the pattern "if struck, move", pattern/law S. In universe A, pattern/law S exists but what's missing is a mathematical pattern in the pattern/law S. I'm using the term "chaos" consistently and without contradiction. — TheMadFool

So now you are using the kind of chaos that you said you aren't using - complexity.

Chaos theory

states of dynamical systems whose apparently-random states of disorder and irregularities are often governed by deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. — wikipedia

The initial condition is free fall. Can an object fall at a different rate if the initial condition of free fall wasn't met?

Let us start by supposing that there are two opposing opinions on some matter. Is there a tried and true universally applicable method of determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter? — creativesoul

Logic.

The fact that you seem satisfied with these kinds of responses to my logical arguments speaks volumes about your lack of maturity.

You're statements say nothing about me, because your making a category error - an ad hominem - but says a lot about how you can't handle logical arguments that contradict your interpretation of the data you've provided. This is how delusional people behave.

If it is raining, then the grass outside is wet.

In what tolerable sense can it be said that the grass outside must be wet (Y) before it can rain? Yes, if it is raining, it is necessarily true that the grass outside is wet. But is it necessary that the grass be wet before it can rain or is raining? — MichaelJYoo

I don't see how the statement implies that the wet grass occurred before the rain, so I'm failing to see the problem you are posing.

There is also the problem of rain not necessarily being the cause of wet grass. Condensation can cause the grass to be wet, not just rain.

Time is not a factor in logical necessity. If it can't both be the case that "it is raining" and the "ground is not wet", then the ground being wet is a necessary condition for it to be raining. That doesn't mean the ground has to be wet first; just that it can't be raining without the ground also being wet. — Pfhorrest

I guess it depends on where we drawn the boundary between raining and not raining. Is it raining when the water drops are condensing and falling from the sky before the water drops hit the ground, and how much water on the grass qualifies it as being wet? This isn't an instantaneous process.

As usual, most philosophical problems are the result of how we use language.

Maybe we should say that once the density of water in the atmosphere reaches a certain point, grass becomes wet.

Seriously, though. Try taking off those politically partisan goggles for once and you won't make so many category errors.

Police are literally a public health risk for black people - black men in particular - in the US. It's an incredible 'stupidity' that just so-happens to kill black people at a rate of 2.5x that of white people. Just one of those inexplicable, magic things that happens because of 'stupidity'. — StreetlightX

The article says that it is young black men. Race is only a third of the description. The other two being age and sex. So how does it follow that it can only be racism is the cause of all these deaths? If it were racism, then age and sex wouldn't seem to matter, would it?

So is this a case of racism, or just plain stupidity? Stupidity is the act of making category errors. Racism is a kind of stupidity, but not the only kind. The article even says that the police "blindy fired", which seems to imply that they never even saw their victim and her skin color before shooting. That is basically two stupid acts together, mistaking the home of their suspect and then "blindly firing" inside a house, but not racism.

This is what I'm talking about - the unwarranted insinuation of racism whenever a conflict occurs between people who's skin color happens to be different. This is another category error (act of stupidity) - in thinking that the cause of the conflict always has something to do with the difference of skin color.

Compare the following three:
1. Universe with no laws. There would be absolutely no pattern. This is the chaos you're talking about. I agree with you here.

2. Universe with a nonmathematical law. As you rightly pointed out, there is a pattern that the law describes but does this pattern preclude chaos? — TheMadFool

Again, you aren't using a consistent definition of chaos. Is chaos a lack of patterns or a lack of mathematical explanations? As and I have pointed out, one doesn't necessarily entail the other.

Even then, in your Universe A, you have both patterns and mathematical explanations.

Universe A:
1. Two objects
2. Law of motion: if one object is struck by another object the struck object will move. This law is non-mathematical — TheMadFool

Definition:
one:
1. denoting a particular item of a pair or number of items

2. the lowest cardinal number; half of two; 1 — TheMadFool

Seems quantitative to me.

Why did you say "an incomplete law" and use the word "how"? For the simple reason that the nomathematical law "if an object strikes another object, the object struck should move" is not sufficient to predict the behavior of objects in a universe that has such a nonmathematical law. Why can't you predict? That would be because there is no pattern in the motion of objects in such a universe. Where there is no pattern, there is chaos no? Basically, there is a pattern in that struck objects will move but there is no pattern in how the struck object will behave/move.

In the scenarios I put for consideration the pattern you see is nonmathematical but the chaos is mathematical. I'm not contradicting myself. Why is the pattern nonmathematical? Why, numbers don't figure in it. Why is the chaos mathematical? There's no pattern in the trajectory or speed, both mathematical entities, of objects. — TheMadFool

In Universe A, why does an object move when struck?

To say that there is a pattern of objects moving when struck, yet no pattern in how the struck object moves, seems to be an incomplete explanation. When explaining why an object moves when struck, you'd be explaining the nature of the objects themselves. Is there something in the nature of the objects that would inform us how they would move when struck? Again, what kinds of questions can we ask about the objects in Universe A? It seems to me that we can ask both non-mathematical and mathematical questions about the objects in Universe A, as in how many objects exist, and how many objects it takes to move another.

You keep moving the goal posts.

So you seem to be contradicting yourself in using two different qualifiers for chaos - one that the universe has unpredictable patterns and the other being the universe can't be explained in mathematical terms.

Now you are saying that chaos something that can't be prevented. How does it follow that because you can answer a mathematical question with a mathematical answer that that prevents chaos?

It seems to me that chaos was prevented the moment you established any pattern in a universe. From that point you would just be talking about

Mathematical chaos theory is, to my reckoning, simply about unexpected complexity in fully deterministic systems. — TheMadFool

, and not randomness.

As must already be obvious, universe A is chaotic as the struck object can assume any velocity and any path - the motion is completely random as the law fails to fully describe motion.

The situation is different in universe B as there is order - the struck object's velocity and path is fully determined by the object striking it. Motion is fully described in this universe and there can be no chaos in the sense that the struck object can assume any velocity or any trajectory. — TheMadFool

TheMadFool's assertion was that Universe A is chaotic because the Law isn't a mathematical explanation, while Universe B is orderly because the Law is a mathematical explanation.

But each explanation is about, or answers, very different questions about each Universe.

Order and chaos are not dependent on what type of questions we ask. They are dependent on whether or not a patterns can be found and then used to make predictions in each Universe.

Mathematical chaos theory is, to my reckoning, simply about unexpected complexity in fully deterministic systems. Nevertheless, there are patterns that can be discerned. The chaos I'm reffering to is completely devoid of any pattern and is also wholly random and undeterministic except perhaps in a qualitative sense. — TheMadFool

Chaos is a term than can refer to randomness or complexity. Randomness can be a result of our ignorance. Once we are able to establish a predictable pattern in the Universe, randomness disappears and becomes order.

In Universe A, you established that a pattern exists - that a struck object moves when struck. If you want to say that the way in which it moves is random, that's fine, but Universe A is still not completely random, as you were still able to establish a pattern within it, and that pattern answers a different question than what your pattern within Universe B does.

If you're saying that the question we are asking about Universe B is unanswerable in Universe A, why is it unanswerable - because we just haven't established a pattern yet, or that there is no pattern to establish? How would you know which is the case in Universe A, unless you imagined it because after all, it is an imagined Universe, and you are its god. Unfortunately, we aren't god in this Universe.

The fact is that, in this universe we have established patterns - a great many of them, and each of them answers different types of questions - mathematical and non-mathematical.