The issue I have is that it has a human component. The thinker. Then observer. And therefore I’m not sure if logic exists without an aware/ sentient observer in the environment or of logical processes occur regardless of us and that “order” is relevant even without people in the picture. — Benj96

Logic couldn’t be boiled down to a system of switches if it were merely a free creation of the human mind and not also an inherent constraint on physical possibility.

So the fact we can build computers with Boolean switches says that there is more to it. The big question is defining the manner in which the Cosmos is in fact a “rational machine” - a Platonic creation. :smile:

As far as I can tell, there's nothing more primary or given...for us at least...than asking for reasons. Do you want me to believe or do something willingly ? Then you need to give me reasons, make a case. If you have doubts about logic, it's presumably because you have seen a (logical) case against its authority...but there's something fishy in this, no ?

I keep quoting this because it seems close to our essence as post-Enlightenment humans.

It is requisite to reason’s lawgiving that it should need to presuppose only itself, because a rule is objectively and universally valid only when it holds without the contingent, subjective conditions that distinguish one rational being from another.
...
Reason must subject itself to critique in all its undertakings, and cannot restrict the freedom of critique through any prohibition without damaging itself and drawing upon itself a disadvantageous suspicion. For there is nothing so important because of its utility, nothing so holy, that it may be exempted from this searching review and inspection, which knows no respect for persons [i.e. does not recognize any person as bearing more authority than any other—GW]. On this freedom rests the very existence of reason, which has no dictatorial authority, but whose claim is never anything more than the agreement of free citizens, each of whom must be able to express his reservations, indeed even his veto, without holding back. (A738f/B766f, translation slightly modified) — Kant

Pretty nice lecture about the 'pomo' challenge to Enlightenment reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiM7IwZWW5g

This might also be relevant: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychologism/

To my reckoning, if logic is artificial in that it's our mind imposing itself on the world, the world should be incomprehensible to us and yet...

The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible. — Albert Einstein

The knife cuts both ways though.

Einstein, by the way, was wrong, so they say, about quantum physics. In what sense and degree is an open question nonetheless.

That's all she wrote.

“the existence of consistent patterns that can intuitively be discerned and from which accurate deductions can be made which emulate the state of things as they are”. — Benj96

Consistency
If there was no regularity in what we observed, there would be no logic in what we observed.

For example, if one morning the sun rose in the east, the next day it rose in the west, and the following day it did not rise at all, we would say that there is no logic in the behaviour of the sun. We expect regularity in the laws of nature. If today 1 + 1 = 2, then we expect that tomorrow 1 + 1 = 2.

If we observe the sun has risen in the east for the previous 1,000 days, we logically infer that the sun rises in the east, where such an inference is based on an assumption of regularity in what we observe, an assumption of the regularity in the laws of nature.

Perhaps, rather than logic depending on regularity, perhaps logic "is" regularity.

Where is this regularity
We observe regularity, but where is this regularity - in the mind of the observer, or observer independent ?

Regularity requires the existence of a relation between two things or two events. But there can only be regularity in an observer independent world if relations ontologically exist in an observer independent world. As I have never come across a persuasive argument that relations do ontologically exist in a observer independent world, my belief is that relations don't ontologically exist in an observer independent world.

If relations don't ontologically exist in a observer independent world, then regularity, which depends on relations, cannot exist in an observer independent word. This means that regularity can only exist in the mind of the observer, meaning that logic can only exist in the mind of the observer

In fact, the world is only comprehensible to an observer because the observer imposes themselves on what they observe. We observe the world, and after observing regularities in the world, we logically infer that regularity exists in the world. Such logical inference is in the mind of the observer, not in what is being observed.

Therefore, logic doesn't exist independently of any observer.

Einstein, by the way, was wrong, so they say, about quantum physics. In what sense and degree is an open question nonetheless. — Agent Smith

That’s a little unfair. Especially as his Nobel was for his contribution to quantum physics - the photoelectric effect.

That’s a little unfair. Especially as his Nobel was for his contribution to quantum physics - the photoelectric effect. — apokrisis

:up: I was probably referring to his "God does not play dice" comment.

The issue I have is that it has a human component. The thinker. Then observer. And therefore I’m not sure if logic exists without an aware/ sentient observer in the environment or of logical processes occur regardless of us and that “order” is relevant even without people in the picture. — Benj96

Modern Science has concluded that every physical thing in the universe is essentially a form of mathematics : geometric relationships & algebraic ratios & formal proportions. Quantum theory has revealed that matter is math --- fields of relationships between dimensionless points. Yet, all those res extensa (spatial things) have numerical values, but no meanings. It is "sentient observers" who give personal (relevant) meaning to otherwise impersonal (abstract) relationships. That's why the "human component" relates all things in the world to Self : the focal point of perspective.

Descartes defined the human mind as res cogitans (thinking thing). Because invisible intangible Thoughts have no physical extension in space. So, René thought of thoughts as more like math : abstract definitions of concrete things & external events. But, it's the concrete thinker who evaluates abstractions in terms of relationship-to-Self. Those personal ME meanings put flesh on the bare bones of geometry.

Metaphorically, what we call "Logic" is simply mathematics with Words (Gk. logoi). And words are merely encapsulated & portable commonly-relevant meanings. Each person's experience of the world is different, but all sentient beings have mathematical bodies, engendered from mathematical topological DNA. So, all mind-making brains are akin, and similar in their basic physical structure. The brains of orcas, octopi & orioles may look different superficially. But in their fundamental physical structure they are similar. They all process information in logical patterns, which are essentially mathematical.

Therefore, the universe, from top to bottom --- from constellations to consciousness --- is essentially a network of logical mathematical interrelationships. So, the eventual emergence of sentient minds, with logical & mathematical talents, is not so surprising. Formal Logic may be an artificial construct in the natural world. But the roots of human Logic are entangled & embedded in the soil of Natural Math. :nerd:


Physical spatial objects are fundamentally mathematical fields :
A field itself, either in classical physics or in its quantization, is simply a function on spacetime, assigning to each spacetime point the "value" of that field at that point.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/337423/what-are-quantum-fields-mathematically

ONE OF THESE IS A BRAIN, THE OTHER IS THE UNIVERSE

Logic is about the connection between assertions, assertions and conclusions.

I don't think it makes sense to say a tree is logical or my cells act logically.

It has to do with thoughts and their relations, what is justified. Unless it's symbolic logic, which is even more abstract.

Metaphorically, what we call "Logic" is simply mathematics with Words (Gk. logoi). And words are merely encapsulated & portable commonly-relevant meanings. — Gnomon

Mathematics tells us that the gravitational force between any two objects is F = GmM/r2, where G = 6.67 * 10-11 N m2/kg2. But mathematics does not tell us why G = 6.67 * 10-11 N m2/kg2, rather than 1 * 10-11 N m2/kg2, for example. Mathematics tells us what will happen, not why it will happen.

Mathematics is based on making logical inferences from observed regularities. If we measure the gravitational force between two objects numerous times and discover that G = 6.67 * 10-11 N m2/kg2, we believe that it is true that G = 6.67 * 10-11 N m2/kg2.

It is true that mathematics tells us that G = 6.67 * 10 -11 N m2/kg2, but mathematics doesn't tell us why G = 6.67 * 10 -11 N m2/kg2 is true. If mathematics cannot explain why something will happen, then in order to understand the nature of reality, we need to know more than mathematics.

IE, what does the mathematical symbol G mean to us ? It means that we can predict what will happen, it does not mean that we know why it will happen.

IE, what does the mathematical symbol G mean to us ? It means that we can predict what will happen, it does not mean that we know why it will happen. — RussellA

Perhaps those mathematical ratios & regularities tell us only that whatever happens is natural & logical -- or G*D's Will, if you will. From that assumption, we can make short-term predictions. But if we want to know where this trend will ultimately end, we'll need some prophetic powers. Otherwise, the "why" may be simply, as believers in holy scripture say : "it is written".

Of course, as philosophers, we are not content with such fatalistic shoulder shrugs. So, we are free to speculate about the intentions behind mathematical & logical destiny. Why "mathematics is the language of the universe"? Or why mathematics is "unreasonably effective". My observation is that the universe is not random & arbitrary, but is obviously governed by intention & logic. But "why?" can only be inferred from the history & direction of evolution. My feeble guess is that this expanding & complexifying universe is an experiment in freewill, limited only by natural laws. To paraphrase famous philosopher Dirty Harry, "Do you feel free, punk?" :smile:

Logic is the necessary resolution of our ability to create form and substance out of the infinite. Unlike a camera which does not identify what it sees, humans can look and say, "Oh, that's grass, and that's a sheep." "A" is 1. And if you combine 1 and 1, you can come up with a concept called 2. Logic is simply the consequence of our ability to create discrete experiences in existence.

Perhaps those mathematical ratios & regularities tell us only that whatever happens is natural & logical — Gnomon

Given G as 6.67 * 10-11 Nm2/kg2, whatever follows is natural and logical, agreeing in this respect with Max Tegmark that the universe is mathematical.

The question remains, why is G the value it is in the first place. Either mathematics spontaneously caused itself, which I cannot accept, or there is something deeper than mathematics, meaning that the universe is not, at its core, mathematical.

The question remains,why is G the value it is in the first place. Either mathematics spontaneously caused itself, which I cannot accept, or there is something deeper than mathematics, meaning that the universe is not, at its core, mathematical. — RussellA

Why ask why? Oh yes, we're doing philosophy here, not calculation. Richard Feynman warned fellow physicists about getting side-tracked on "why" questions, when there were still so many "what" & "how" questions to resolve. Apparently he was quoting David Mermin : "If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be 'Shut up and calculate!'"

Anyway, I agree that there must be "something deeper than mathematics". As I mentioned before, numbers have only abstract values, hence they can't explain the emergence of reasons and personal meanings. So, I infer that the First Cause of our world must have possessed the Potential (creative power) for an organized world and for reasoning beings, which Plato labeled "LOGOS".

You can't go any "deeper" than the Primary Source of everything in our expanding & complexifying universe. It seems to be going somewhere, instead of just cycling in one place. So, that observation of direction implies some Intention behind the original causal impulse : the Mind behind the cue stick. Therefore, if a unique Singularity was the space-time point-of-origin for the Big Bang (not a self-destroying explosion, but an expansion of Potential into Actual), then it may have been like DNA, preprogrammed with enough information to construct a cosmos from scratch. Is that deep enough for you? :wink:

PS___In my personal thesis, I propose that the universe is, "at its core", Informational. And acausal abstract Mathematics is just one of many forms of Information ; causal Energy being another form. So, Tegmark is on the right track, but didn't go deep enough.

What is Information ? :
EnFormAction --- The power to enform, to create, to cause change ; the essence of informed awareness ; the act of enforming
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

LOGOS :
Logos became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c.  535 – c.  475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge. . . . . For Heraclitus, logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#:~:text=Plato%27s%20Theory%20of%20Forms%20was,the%20creation%20of%20the%20Universe.

Here is my rule of thumb for how logic functions (how we use it) in the grand, perpetual project of making sense of our experiences (and their limitations):

Grammar functions as a heuristic scaffolding for generating discursive practices (e.g. semantic patterns).

Logic functions as an algorithmic scaffolding for generating syntatical structures (e.g. mathematics).

Mathematics functions as a manifold of algorithmic scaffoldings for constructing repeatable tests in the natural sciences.

Sciences (natural & historical) function as heuristic scaffoldings for describing (i.e. map-making) and explaining (i.e. model-making) natural / historical fact-patterns and their transformational conditions-algorithms.

I don't see the need to reify logic itself (à la e.g. Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hegel et al), even though it's "integral" to discursive reasoning about reality.

Anyway, I agree that there must be "something deeper than mathematics". — Gnomon

:smile: :smile: :smile: