That's cool, but it doesn't diminish the fact that the double slit experiment appears to show a contradiction. — frank

I see. Well, in this case, I suppose it is you - if you claim that the double slit shows a contradiction. But you included "appears" to avoid that.

Sure. The salient point here is that when language - including maths and logic - was inadequate tot he task of describing some physical phenomena, the language was changed so that it worked.

As a rule of thumb, if a philosophical question becomes tied down in QM, it's gone up the garden path.

Your insistence that the double-slit experiment doesn't really show a contradiction supports my point. You don't know why it's not illogical, but you're sure that logic tells us how things should be.

So you support some proposition X that logically explains things. Reaching out for that unexpressed proposition is like trying to hear the world's truth: that third person information that resolves the trouble.

You believe that logic tells us how the world should be. Admit it! :death: its almost Halloween! Do you guys do Halloween?

I don't see your point. Think I need sleep.

don't see your point. Think I need sleep. — Banno

The mysteries surrounding quantum experiment haven't been resolved. There is no consensus among scientists about how we should think about it. If someone gave you the impression it's otherwise, you were misled.

In fact, Lawrence Krause has suggested that at some point in the distant future, all of our present theories may be found to be primitive and laughable.

If you insist that the relevant truth must be logical, you demonstrate faith that logic tells us how the world should be, not simply how we should speak.

I'll hazard a theory of logic:

The capacity of consciousness to relate two or more of its contents and perceive their relationship.

It's a bit more general than andrewk's and makes no reference to brains. We're a bit obsessed with brains. I'll make a topic about that when I get a mo I think.

So when we come across something illogical, we have said it wrong, and look for a way to say it right. — Banno

Now you're catching on. It is not a case of "we cannot say it", but a case of "we can say it wrongly". Forget about that claim that logic dictates what can and cannot be said. It's completely unreasonable.

The results of the double slit experiment appear to defy logic. Who misspoke and what did they say? — frank

This is a good example. Wave/particle duality is contradictory. Energy can move from one place to another in the form of a wave, or it can move as a massive object. The same energy cannot move as both, that is contradictory, therefore illogical. Since logic dictates the correct and incorrect way of speaking, we can conclude that this is an incorrect way of speaking. This description of that phenomenon is incorrect.

If you insist that the relevant truth must be logical, — frank

SO you are suggesting we adopt a theory that is inconsistent? You sure about that?

you are suggesting we adopt a theory that is inconsistent? You sure about that? — Banno

No. I'm noting that you deny that illogical statements can be true. Therefore you think logic tells us something about the way the world is.

I'm noting that you deny that illogical statements can be true. — frank

...anymore than they can be false.

Yep.

I'm noting that you deny that illogical statements can be true. Therefore you think logic tells us something about the way the world is. — frank

You can see that there is a bit missing from your argument.

Even if you say illogical statements aren't truth apt, you still maintain that the world has to make sense. Correct?

I think a statement will have to make some sort of sense in order to be identified as illogical. Equivocation is an example of a logical failure which certainly isn't gibberish. And our catalog of logical fallacies demonstrates that a lack of logic doesnt interfere with language use.

Whether an illogical statement can be truth apt is an interesting question. Probably depends on how we want to handle truth. Ordinary language-wise, I dont see a problem with saying that "The fox is both red and not-red" is false.

Other cases of illogic might be treated as non-truth-apt.

The person I was responding to was making the case that even mathematical logic has an inherent normative component to it. Really all I was saying is that there are different senses to "logic" and the norms for correct reasoning is only one sense, it doesn't subsume the others.

I don't think FOPL really captures the intuitive reasoning we're drawn to either, I don't [think] any logic does. That's why people get tripped up by things like the material implication paradoxes or find "ex falso quodlibet" strange, because they don't map onto how we actually reason. FOPL is really, I think, about capturing a certain type of mathematical reasoning, as that was explicitly why Frege created it. — MindForged

Well that about captures what I might've said, only better, so I don't need to bother. :smile: :up:

↪Banno Even if you say illogical statements aren't truth apt, you still maintain that the world has to make sense. Correct? — frank

Making sense presumably means being the subject of some sort of discussion...

So saying that the world makes sense is just saying that we produce sentences about it that cohere.

That's about the sentences, not the world. If the world were other than it is, we would presumably use different sentences...

Teoria Fluida (Reprodução / Alimentação / Raciocínio) decantada auto-mutidimentional ... A polidinâmica do movimento gera a pseudo-autonomia como propriedade material, do fenômeno autógeno; existindo(...) Simultaneidade como minha variabilidade unidimensional ... variabilidade unidimensional = seres vivos

Fluid theory (Reproduction/Feed/Reasoning) decanted selfmultidimentionalover...
The simultaneity polydynamics of the movement (Reproduction/Feed/Reasoning) generates pseudo-autonomy as material property, of the autogenous phenomenon; existing.(...)
Simultaneous as my unidimensional variability...
unidimensional variability = live-beings

Fluid theory (Reproduction/Feed/Reasoning) decanted selfmultidimentionalover...
The simultaneity polydynamics of the movement (Reproduction/Feed/Reasoning) generates pseudo-autonomy as material property, of the autogenous phenomenon; existing.(...)
Simultaneous as my unidimensional variability...
unidimensional variability = live-beings

Making sense presumably means being the subject of some sort of discussion — Banno

Didn't you say that illogical statements make no sense? Then is it not per you that "making sense" means adhering to logic?

I've no idea what your point is, Frank. Is this heading somewhere?

You were saying that our communication must be logical. Our communication is often about the world. Does it follow that the world must operate logically?

...the world must operate logically — frank

Does that, for you, imply that the world is in some way restricted in how it can and cannot be, by logic?

Because that's not my claim. If the world were different to how it is, then we would have adopted a different logic, one suitable for that world.

Our grammar can change to match the world.

Does that, for you, imply that the world is in some way restricted in how it can and cannot be, by logic? — Banno

As if logic is a puppet master? No, I wasn't suggesting that. I thought you were saying that non-logical language is nonsense and non-truth-apt. I was asking if we could therefore conclude that the world can't manifest a lack of logic.

If the world were different to how it is, then we would have adopted a different logic, one suitable for that world.

Our grammar can change to match the world. — Banno

What's the basis for these assertions?

No, I wasn't suggesting that. I thought you were saying that non-logical language is nonsense and non-truth-apt. I was asking if we could therefore conclude that the world can't manifest a lack of logic. — frank

A non-logical language - a language without a grammar? How could you recognise a non-logical language, as a language?

The world doesn't manifest logic. We make logic to manifest the world.

What's the basis for these assertions? — frank

They are part of a description of what language is.

A non-logical language - a language without a grammar? How could you recognise a non-logical language, as a language? — Banno

I don't know. Did you not say that non-logical statements are nonsense?

We make logic to manifest the world. — Banno

I don't think I have the experience of either making logic or manifesting the world. What am I missing?

They are part of a description of what language is. — Banno

That if the world changed, our logic would change? How is that a description of language?

Manifest was your term.

Do you think logic, as a set of rules for language use, is descriptive or prescriptive?

If it's possible to witness illogical language use, then it has to be prescriptive. Since "X and not-X" is clearly illogical, it would appear that you must be talking about prescriptive, governing rules.

True?