The so called 'laws of physics' are not really 'laws' in that physical entities are compelled to follow those laws. What you actually have in the 'laws of physics' are a description, and often a very accurate description, of the way that physical entities behave. — A Seagull
Let me re-emphasize my thought-experiment: Suppose the world changes overnight so that it becomes impossible to model an implication (per se and of course especially for our human minds). It's hard to see why and how, but just bare with me. Wouldn't that mean that MP becomes impossible as well, in contrast to a day before where it was not only possible, but necessary? Doesn't that prove the induction problem for logic as well? — Pippen
Nowadays, Hume's intuition about the sun is considered to be quite right:
The Solar System will remain roughly as we know it today until the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been entirely converted to helium, which will occur roughly 5 billion years from now. — alcontali
Again: Why is it impossible that we wake up tomorrow in a world where one tiny particle has the property to be and not to be (which would make the whole world inconsistent)? That would make MP invalid and kill all our logic, right? — Pippen
No, we would just look for ways to model the world that avoided inconsistency. — Andrew M
But your answer implies that it could happen and so we'd need to adjust our logic and math, — Pippen
but that means the problem of induction also applies to logic and math so why did Hume not agree? — Pippen
In turn, accepting inconsistency seems to take one out of the bounds of meaningful language. — Andrew M
In turn, accepting inconsistency seems to take one out of the bounds of meaningful language.
— Andrew M
Not really. It just means trivialism, i.e. everything becomes true, but I can still talk and be understood on an ostensive level. That sounds enough meaningful to me. — Pippen
Back to Hume. How does he prove that logic is not a matter of fact but something higher? IMO he can't, so his "fork" is pretty much made up from speculation and tradition. — Pippen
Can you give an example of ostensive talk that doesn't assume non-trivialism? — Andrew M
Imagine tomorrow the proposition "p & ~p" becomes somehow true! — Pippen
Isn't that a proof by example that logic is not necessary? — Pippen
Suppose per hypothesis that, tomorrow, "p & ~p" becomes true. One response is to reject the hypothesis. That is, to say that such a scenario is impossible and thus cannot obtain. Another response is to change the rules of logic to accommodate the scenario. — Andrew M
The same thing that prevents you, or should prevent you, to imagine our planet is actually called Penis, while knowing for a fact it is named Earth. Nonsense. — Zelebg
The problem is semantic, it is about constructing a formal system for common meaning to help us communicate. Imagining then some other system of reference meanings does not speak about actual change in the outside world, but about personal interpretation module. Dealing with it would manifest with difficulties in communication. — Zelebg
knowing for a fact it is named Earth. — Zelebg
How to know such a fact. Perhaps you meant, agreeing to assume?
Ok. I did that.
It's gibberish, a contradiction, it does not compute, and being semantically invalid statement it can not be sanely reasoned about. — Zelebg
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.