There are two possible worlds that are accessible from today. — Banno

The concept of "possible worlds" itself violates the fundamental laws of logic. To predicate of "a world" that this world is possible violates the fundamental laws of logic. "Possible" implies that the world neither is nor is not and that is a violation.

Or, as argued earlier, determinism is false. — Banno

That's the best conclusion. But, if in fact determinism is false, then either the law of non-contradiction, or the law of excluded middle, both, or even identity, do not apply toward things of the future. This produces an important ontological question of what does the future consist of.

.To question the creator at all, we are assuming they exist to begin with right? So I see why the claim you make regarding Inherent existence is relevant here. Otherwise, bringing up the infinite regress aspect of design vs designer arguments as an acceptable position is assuming the existence exists in the first place..or is questioning how the existence was created apart of it's inherent nature? — Kizzy

An infinite regress signifies a logical impasse, a point where logic fails us. Assuming a final cause, as first cause, breaks the infinite regress of efficient cause, thereby pointing the mind in a different direction, allowing the logic to go to work from a different perspective, and possibly avoiding that failure.

So when I mention "the will to know" it involves the will to get beyond the logical impasse presented by things like infinite regress, (which appear to indicate that the object is impossible to know), and derive a new approach toward knowing it.

But there is a shwack load of situations with real possibilities. This would make the application of the law of excluded middle to be so infrequent that it would be no law at all. Which sounds absurd. — A Christian Philosophy

When you think about it, the law of excluded middle has very limited applicability. It's incompatible with probabilities. That's why modal forms of logic were invented.

Here is my alternative solution: There is ambiguity in the terms "there will be".
The statement "there will be a sea battle tomorrow" either means "there will necessarily be a sea battle tomorrow" or "there will possibly be a sea battle tomorrow". Both statements are either true or false. — A Christian Philosophy

Ambiguity just brings the violation of to a different level. Which of the two statements is true, and which is false? If we say "there will possibly be a sea battle tomorrow" is true, then the being or not being of that event, the referred sea battle, violates the law. This is exactly the tactic of Banno, by making "sea battle" a logical subject instead of an objective occurrence being referred to, it's existence becomes irrelevant, and the world of the sea battle is simply a possible world. Then whatever is said about it must follow the rules of that form of logic, rather than the rules we are discussing.

That's fine, within that logical structure which respects the fact that the subject, the sea battle tomorrow, is not a real object, but an idea created by a mind. The three laws, identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle, make statements concerning what we can say about real objects. They do not apply to imaginary (or possible) objects, because we can say anything we want about these. The imagination is inherently unlimited. And since these imaginary subjects are beyond the applicability of those laws, we can just make up other laws, axioms, definitions, etc., which these imaginary things must obey.

Your notion of concepts and objects seems incommensurable with mine, such that we're talking past each other. — Jamal

Yes I noticed this. We employ different principles for categorization.

In other words, both in thought (the concept) and in society (the object), contradiction stems from or reveals the drive to master nature, which becomes also the drive to master people. — Jamal

I interpret that passage like this. In the case of "reality", nature is constrained by the laws of nature. In the case of thought, mind is constrained by the principle of identity.

With reference to what I said earlier, about the problem with conflating "process and result", "method and content", we have no principles here to help us judge whether this process called "mastery", is good or not.

Further, we ought to be skeptical of Adorno's representation when he says that these constraints "force it into its intrinsic contradictions". It may actually be the case that these constraints act to exclude contradictions which are already immanent. If "contradiction" becomes the basis for a judgement of bad, then this becomes a very important question, concerning the described mastery.

Lol! It seems to me that "exactly similar" is an oxymoron or close to it. — tim wood

I think that's exactly the point made by the op. "Symmetry" is a sort of self-refuting idea, which we allow to have existence in our minds, but it is denied from reality. Like many ideals (perfections) we conceive them, but they do not have real independent existence.

Plato's "Symposium" is a very good source as a tutorial for understanding "Forms" through the theory of participation.

Like I thought, two different meanings. I think the op uses the word in the following way:
"the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis."

In the real world, is the distance between my front door and my mailbox the same as the distance between my mailbox and front door? — jgill

If this is a symmetry, then "symmetry" has distinct meanings. I think of symmetry as involving two distinct parts. which are identical. Here we have one thing looked at from different perspectives.

But consider: it is the case that I live in an organized group of people, and that the way this group is organized has effects on me, providing opportunities for and imposing limits on my actions. Since it is so important, it is one of the things I think about, one of the things I reason about with concepts. — Jamal

The issue which brought us to this disagreement is the epistemological implications of one's ontological judgement, as to what qualifies as "an object". If I allow that an organized group of people is an object, simply because that group is important to me, though it may well be the case that some members of that group believe X is good or true, while others believe X is bad or false, then we allow that contradiction inheres within that object. At this point, we forfeit the identity principle, i.e. the law of identity, which states that an object has an identity, and along with that forfeiture we lose the applicability of the law of non-contradiction.

The point being that by doing this, we no longer have as a tool, the principle by which we distinguish which type of existents the fundamental laws of logic are applicable to, and which type are not, therefore we lose the rule by which those laws are applied, inviting arbitrary exceptions. We allow that contradiction inheres within objects, therefore objects do not necessarily have an identity.

Consider a dual meaning of "object", one being a unified body of material substance, and the other being a goal, or end. I think you'll agree that these two are very different meanings, and to mix them up would be equivocation. Now think about the "organized group of people", and how this is "important" to you. The use of "important" indicates that this is a goal based meaning of "object", rather than a material substance based meaning of "object". Further, we can see that all value (in this word's most general sense) based "objects", extending through ethics, money, mathematics, etc., are grounded in the goal, or end, meaning of "object", rather than the material substance meaning.

So we find that contradiction readily inheres within goals, intentions, and ends, "objects" in this sense. An individual attempts to rectify such contradictions in deliberating on actions. Now the question is, do we want to annihilate the distinction between the two types of objects, allow that contradiction may inhere in all objects, and forfeit the applicability of the fundamental laws of logic. That might involve a complete denial of epistemological principles. Or, can we maintain some sort of rules as to where these laws are applicable, and not, as Peirce attempted. I'm interested to see how Adorno might proceed with his negative dialectics.

In my opinion, which I believe I share with Adorno, when we talk about society we are not talking about a concept, therefore “society” doesn’t refer to a concept. Sure, it’s not a bundle of moderately sized dry goods (paraphrasing Austin), but it’s something real with an objective structure all the same. What matters to Adorno is the subject-object polarity, with the philosopher or whoever as the subject and, most relevantly, society or a part or aspect of society as the object. — Jamal

That you, Adorno, and others believe that "society" refers to an object, rather than to a concept, because it is something real with "an objective structure", does not really prove that this is the truth. Platonists believe that numbers and other mathematical concepts are objects. But the fact that these concepts have what can be called "an objective structure" does not justify the claim that these concepts are objects. This is because there is much ambiguity in the meaning of "objective", and we would need a clear definition of "object", and base "objective" on that definition, to make that judgement without a likelihood of equivocation.

This is where the law of identity plays a role. We can define "object" as something that has an identity which inheres within itself, rather than the identity which we assign to it, and this excludes artificially created axiomatic concepts from being objects. If however, we deny the applicability of the law of identity, as Hegel did, and take up a position of "non-identity", then what will serve as the means for distinguishing objects from concepts? And if contradiction is seen to inhere within concepts, then it will also be seen to inhere within objects, if we do not apply the principle that an object is a type of thing which has an identity and obeys the law of non-contradiction.

Anyway, I'm more than happy to drop this digression and continue with the reading. I'm interested to see where he is leading us.

Could you provide a specific example of future event not following the rules?
Using Aristotle's sea battle example: Either there will be a sea battle tomorrow or not. Today, it is possible that there will be a sea battle tomorrow or not. And thus, it is not impossible that there will be a sea battle tomorrow or not. To me, all three propositions obey the fundamental rules. — A Christian Philosophy

In this example, the law of excluded middle is violated. The statement "there will be a sea battle tomorrow" is neither true nor false. We do not say that it is both true and false, so non-contradiction is upheld. You express this as "it is possible", and this is an expression which violates the law of excluded middle. The law of excluded middle implies that it is necessary that one or the other is true, therefore real possibility is excluded.

I read up on Peirce's triadic system a bit, and I don't see how it allows violation of the fundamental laws of logic. If it's not too much to ask, could you explain how it does? — A Christian Philosophy

Well, it's beyond the scope of this thread, but if I remember correctly, firstness is the realm of real possibility, potential, where the law of excluded middle is not applicable, as demonstrated in your example of "possible" above. Secondness is the realm of actual occurrence where the law of identity and the other laws of logic are all applicable. Thirdness is the realm of generality, universals, which unites the first and second, but this is only done through violation of the law of non-contradiction.

Well, he does immediately give the prime example he has in mind of what "the object" is: antagonistic society. And despite our worries about formal logic and predication vs identity (and your concern about identity vs equality), it doesn't seem far-fetched to say that society is contradictory at least in some sense (and he gives examples). — Jamal

I have a short, and hopefully concise, reply to make to this, and then we can leave the subject until it resurfaces. In my opinion, "society" refers to a concept rather than an object. I believe Aristotle imposed the law of identity as a means for distinguishing objects from concepts. An object has an identity, a concept does not. This allowed him to create a separation between material things, as primary substance, and the "mathematical objects" of Platonism which are not substantial. A material thing constitutes "primary substance", and there are no material things which words like "society" and "freedom" refer to. They are lacking in substance and are purely conceptual.

Notice, that the law of identity, as I present it, provides the basis for the Identity logic which Adorno rejects. If it is an object it has an identity, and vise versa, and this constitutes the secondary sense of "identity" as the logical identity, of what it means to be an object, to have this predication, "identity". After Hegel denied the usefulness of the law of identity, we have many logicians who blur the category distinction between object and concept. But this creates difficulty in determining when and where the law of identity is applicable. Along with this, the applicability of the other two laws, contradiction and excluded middle are questionable, as demonstrated by Peirce. Further, without grounding truth in primary substance (material object) the applicability of different types of logic, like modal logic and fuzzy logic for example, is not well disciplined. That I believe, is the principal issue involved with blurring the category separation between object and concept, unclear rules for the applicability of different logic types.

In other words, Adorno is wrong to claim that logic and language themselves are responsible for the coerciveness of identity thinking. He is right that thinking in modernity leads to the extinguishing of valuable particularity, but he is wrong about the ultimate cause; the cause is not an inherent tendency in logic and language, but is something to do with social and economic pressures. — Jamal

I agree with this, and the "social and economic pressures" could be generalized as a rapidly changing world with evolving knowledge and social conditions. However, I believe that we must take "the coerciveness of identity thinking" from the very top, or very bottom depending on how you look at it to understand it properly. At the very bottom is the law of identity and the strict category distinction between object and concept. The coerciveness is analogous to an ethical principle. In a rapidly changing world, new situations and circumstances arise which extend far beyond the applicability of the old rules, and we need to adapt quickly. Efficiency generally guides us, but what principles distinguish good ends from bad ends, or truth from falsity? This is the inevitable result of refusing the division between method and result, or process and content. Emphasis is placed on getting the job done without due consideration as to what is being done. We are left with a hole where "truth" or "good" used to be.

I believe that these considerations will suffice for the moment to show you how we are compelled from the vantage point of objective reality to apply the concept of contradiction, not simply as the contradiction between two unrelated objects, but as an immanent contradiction, a contradiction in the object itself. — p.9

This I believe could constitute a challenge to the law of identity itself. If contradiction inheres within the object itself, this would seem to imply that the object could have no identity. But he does not clarify what he means in this statement, and the ancients allowed contradictory predications so long as they are not at the same time. This is how change was understood, a negation of the property, a property come form its contrary. That requires temporal extension.

How do we interpret Adorno’s insistence that predicative judgments imply identities, i.e., that bringing two things under the same concept amounts to equating them? So far I’ve had to settle with the view that there is such a tendency — but Adorno’s claim is stronger. — Jamal

Yes, I have difficulty with this as well. In simple predication, "A is B" signifies a subject and a predicate. In no way is the subject identical to the predicate. However, the predication may be taken as an identity statement in the sense that it could function to help identify which objects correspond with the named subject, A. In another sense we might identify a named object A, as being of the type or classification of B. We'd say "A is a B". This is a stronger sense of identity.

What I think, is that when Adorno mentions "predicative judgements", he is referring to predicate logic, or "first order logic". If I understand correctly, predicate logic allows objects to be classed together according to predicates, as a set, and this establishes an equality between the individual objects. So for example, if we name something A only if the thing has property B, then all As have B. This allows us to say "if A then B", and there is an equality established amongst all the things named A by that relation to B. For that specific purpose then, all things named A are the same, identical, in the sense that B is implied.

The deeper issue, which I believe Adorno will address, is that equating things is this way is not truly giving the things an identity because the equality is based on the predicate, and proper identity is assigned to the object itself. So when a logician asserts that this type of equality is identity, that is a pretense. And if it is necessary to accept this form of equality as identity, in order to make the logical procedure, that is what he called logical coercion.

I think of identity in two ways:

(a) Subject-object identity: identity between the concept and the thing, the prioritization of the subject and the loss of aspects of reality in the act of conceptualization. This is what Adorno is referring to as the identity of being and thought, but there's another side to it...

(b) Object-object identity: identity between the objects brought under the concept, the flattening out of difference, the loss of thisness. — Jamal

I think we need to differentiate between "identity" as it is used in first order logic or predicate logic, and "identity" as it occurs in Aristotle's law of identity.

The law of identity states that a thing is the same as itself. This places identity within the thing itself, as a form of object-object identity, recognizing the uniqueness of the particular thing, as the thing's identity. This is a relationship which a thing has only with itself, it is the same as itself. In logic, a thing's "identity" is something we assign to the thing.

There is actually a huge difference between these two, because first order logic then takes "identity" to mean "equal to". So in logic there may be two distinct things which share the "same" identity by being equal to each other, while the law of identity restricts "same" to a relation which one thing has only to itself. It may be argued that sameness by the law of identity is a special type of equality, an equality relation which a thing has only with itself, but it's really meaningless to say that a thing is equal to itself, when what is meant is "same". The difference between "equal" and "same" appears to be paramount in the proposed dialectics.

In common practise, this difference is the difference between "same type", and "same" in an absolute sense. So you and I can be said to have the same car (similar make, model, colour), but we do not actually drive the same car in an absolute sense. One sense of "same" bases identity, or sameness in the type, the other bases sameness in the thing itself. The sense of "same" used by modern logicians is qualified or restricted for the purpose of the logical procedure, so that it really means same in a specific way which is designed for, and relevant to that procedure, the differences being dismissed as differences which do not make a difference. This is really a meaning of similar.

Adorno's "non-identity" appears to be a rejection of the form of identity employed by logicians, the one which is really equality, being a specified similarity. We see that a multitude of objects subsumed under the same concept are deemed as the same by virtue of that concept, and Adorno denies this sameness with the term "non-identity". However, he has not, at this point, denied that distinct things have a true identity within themselves, as dictated by the law of identity. So "non-identity" does not negate the law of identity in its traditional form, it negates identity in the logical form, as equality.

The meaning of "non-identity", and the importance of "contradiction" is presented on page 8. Simply put, "A=B" seems to imply that A is identical with B, as an identity statement. However, evidence indicates that B is not A. This demonstrates that identity in this form is actually a "coercion" of logic, where we are coerced to accept A=B as identity. If we do not accept this coercion, then A=B as identity, is viewed as self-contradictory itself. Such resistance to this coercion is also characterized as contradiction, allowing the law of non-contradiction to be applied in support of the coercion. Therefore, we accept one or the other, and deny the one not accepted, as contradictory. But either way, contradiction is the base of our thinking. One concept of "contradiction" contradicts the other so that the two oppose each other. The view of "non-identity", I conclude, is the view that sees the identity claim of "A=B" as self-contradicting.

Now you may well say, this discrepancy is not necessarily a
contradiction. But I believe that it offers us a first insight into the necessity
of dialectical thinking. Any such predicative judgement that A is B,
that A = B, contains a highly emphatic claim. It is implied, firstly,
that A and B are truly identical. Their non-identity not only does not
become manifest; if it does manifest itself, then according to the
traditional rules of logic, predicative logic, that identity is disputed. Or
else we say: the proposition A = B is self-contradictory because our
experience and our perception tell us that B is not A. Thus because
the forms of our logic practise this coercion on identity, whatever
resists this coercion necessarily assumes the character of a contradiction.
If, therefore, as I observed at the outset, the concept of contradiction
plays such a central role in a negative dialectics, the explanation
for it is to be found in the structure of logical thought itself, which
is defined by many logicians (though not in the way it operates in the
various current trends in mathematical logic) by the validity of the
law of contradiction. And what this means then is that everything
that contradicts itself is to be excluded from logic – and, in fact,
everything that does not fit in with this positing of identity does
contradict itself. Thus the fact that our entire logic and hence our
entire thinking is built upon this concept of contradiction or its denial
is what justifies us in treating the concept of contradiction as a central
concept in a dialectics, and in subjecting it to further analysis.

He ends the lecture with a question about his use of "negative" as a defining term of his dialectics:

Given that the concept of dialectics contains the element
of negativity precisely because of the presence of contradiction, does
this not mean that every dialectics is a negative dialectics and that
my introduction of the word ‘negative’ is a kind of tautology?

He outlines the issues derived from Hegel, how thought itself acts to negate, seeming to imply that the subject needs to negate itself, but the question is left to be fully answered at a later time.

So maybe we can say, not that Adorno was a Platonic post-Hegelian, but that he was a Socratic one. — Jamal

I'm fine with that, but I generally look at what you call "the Socratic method" as the Platonic method. This is how Socrates is portrayed in Plato's dialogues, so this method is really indicative of Plato's thought process.

It's very good to separate the Platonic method (Platonic dialectics) from Platonism, because the latter has developed a meaning in modern usage which is actually in contradiction with what Plato expressed. "Platonism" is commonly understood as the conception of eternal unchanging ideas. But this is exactly the concept which Plato subjected to skepticism, with what you call the Socratic method. Following Plato, you'll see that Aristotle continued with a full refutation of Pythagorean idealism (my name for what is now called "Platonism"), by applying the concept of potential, and he also started on a reconstruction, a sort of synthesis where potential, as "matter", plays a very important role. Classical Neo-Platonists on the other hand attempted to cling to the vestigials of Pythagoreanism, forcing "matter" into the world of mysticism.

Also, I think for context, it would very useful to understand the ancient notion of contradiction. This is a logical principle expressed by Parmenides as the difference between being and not being. Being and not being are understood not in an absolute sense, as we are prone to think of these, but in a qualitative sense as "B is A", and "B is not A". This is the way that the ancients understood change, as a thing moving from being what it is, to not being what it was. So change was understood as active contradiction, supported by a temporal separation between the contrary states.

It wasn't until Aristotle's work, that the principles of predication were firmly established. Aristotle defined the separation between subject and predicate. This allowed that the subject could maintain its identity as "B", and contradiction was relegated to its predicates, "is A", "is not A". In this way, a thing, with its identity as itself, could never evolve into not being itself, because what changes, or moves between contradictories, is the thing's properties. Hegel subjected this idea "identity" to skepticism, doubting the need to assume an underlying subject which maintains its identity as itself. This forces us back to reconsider the pre-Socratic notion, that the entirety of a thing's being is negated at each moment of change.

As for the lectures, copies of LND are widely available, but let me know if you have trouble locating one. — Jamal

I've been searching, but haven't found anything free online yet, and it's an expensive book.

Why must everything be a matter of contradictions? — Jamal

From what I've read in a free sampling of LND, his idea of "contradiction" is not really conventional. It seems more like difference, or contradicting in the sense that not-same negates sameness.

It is that the concept of contradiction will play a central role here, more
particularly, the contradiction in things themselves, contradiction in
the concept, not contradiction between concepts. At the same time –
and I am sure that you will not fail to see that this is in a certain
sense the transposition or development of a Hegelian motif – the
concept of contradiction has a twofold meaning. On the one hand,
as I have already intimated, we shall be concerned with the contradictory
nature of the concept. What this means is that the concept enters
into contradiction with the thing to which it refers.

So he goes on to explain this difference between concept, as a sort of whole (perhaps a type), and the individuals or particulars which are named by the concept. There is a specified sameness which each particular has, which forms the concept, by abstraction, and since the concept does not include every aspect of each individual, it is in that sense less than the individual. However, at the same time, the concept mysteriously has something more than that abstracted value, which extends beyond that entire set of individuals, and this is what provides it with the potential to be applied indefinitely. I believe that his is the basis of that "contradictory nature of the concept". It is at the same time less than each individual thing, but also more than all the individual things.

When a B is defined as an A, it is always also different from and more than the A, the
concept under which it is subsumed by way of a predicative judge
ment. On the other hand, however, in a sense every concept is at the
same time more than the characteristics that are subsumed under it.

Here is another important aspect of his outlook:

I shall not pretend to make a virtue of necessity, but I do believe that this view
does not properly fit our understanding of the nature of philosophy;
that philosophy is thought in a perpetual state of motion; and
that, as Hegel, the great founder of dialectics, has pointed out, in
philosophy the process is as important as the result; that, as he asserts
in the famous passage in the Phenomenology, process and result are
actually one and the same thing.

...

...I do not recognize the usual distinction between method and content...

I believe that it is important to note this position, because it denies the assumed separation between the means and the end. In one sense, the appearance that teleology is avoided can be created this way, by saying all is process, and there is no desire for conclusion. However, it's just an appearance, as the end is now the means, so priority is placed on perfecting the method. In this way, it may be possible to come as close as possible to avoiding prejudice, by having no preconceived goal to influence the direction of the process.

It's interesting that he positions Hegel as the founder of dialectics rather than Plato. It appears to me, like what Adorno is offering is a dialectics more closely related to Plato's than Hegel's. He dismisses "synthesis" completely, and focuses on a deconstruction of the concept. It may be characterized as deconstructionist. This is very similar to the Platonic dialectical method. Plato took varying definitions of the same term to break down the assumed concept, and expose contradiction within the supposed "concept", demonstrating its weaknesses. it is a skeptical method.

I won't elaborate on that any further, since what I'm trying to show right now is just that dialectical thought might still be useful, and might even remain the best way of thinking philosophically — and that it's not just an obsolete step in knowledge's forward march. — Jamal

If it's the best way of thinking philosophically, then it's true philosophy, and will never be obsolete so long as there are human beings.

I'll do what I can to keep up with the reading, but that's a lot of material. So I'm happy that you're in no rush.

Fine; but if the datapoints are entered, it is false to state that the datapoints are not entered, and it still remains a true fact in reality that Patient A cannot both have allergy B and not have allergy B at the same time. — A Christian Philosophy

This says something about the type of thing that "allergy B" refers to. It is a property, and we have categorized the aspects of reality so that things known as properties obey the fundamental rules. The issue is that there are aspects of reality which do not necessarily obey those rules.

So Aristotle propose another category, known as "potential", to classify the aspects of reality which do not obey those rules. The two important aspects of reality which are placed in this category are future events which require a choice or decision, and matter itself, which provides the capacity for change, by being the real existence of potential at the present.

You can see that these aspects of reality are not accurately called properties. They are better known as concepts or ideas. The future event decided by choice, exists as an idea in someone's mind. And "matter" is a concept which Aristotle used to substantiate the reality of bodies in their temporal extension.

For a modern example of why we must allow violation of the fundamental laws of logic, you could investigate Peirce's triadic system.

If that's okay, I'll drop the efficient cause/final cause cause topic to avoid going off on a tangent. — A Christian Philosophy

Sure, but final cause will need to be allowed to reenter through the back door, as what substantiates the efficacy of ideas and concepts, confirming their reality. This will be required to demonstrate that potential is something real. Otherwise one might simply deny the reality of the things in this category, possibility, potential, ideas, matter, etc., calling them imaginary or fictional, and insist that all reality must obey the laws of logic.

I cannot see this happening. — AmadeusD

You must pay close attention to notice Banno's equivocation, because equivocation is an interpretive error, rather than a direct error of usage. So the recognition of one's equivocation is dependent on your interpretation of one's interpretation. His latest reply to you is a clear indication that Banno is prone to misinterpretation.

Assuming the particles follow a path of some kind, how is it they manage to favour some paths over others? — tim wood

The particles do not exist in the transmission of radiant energy, so there is no path. The energy moves as waves not particles. We all know about electromagnetic waves, light waves, radio waves, etc.. Those are real waves and we can see refraction (rainbows) and a variety of interference patterns associated with these waves.

The problem is that we have not identified the medium (sometimes called ether) within which the waves exist. Therefore the waves cannot be modeled or represented as they actually exist, so they are represented as a wave function. At the base of this problem is the fact that there is no adequate understanding of the photoelectric effect, which is the quantized way that fields of radiation waves interact with what are known as material objects. That is the relationship between the medium (ether) and the supposed material objects.

I would have thought that, even though there are many sub-branches of logic, all the branches are compatible with each other so that logic as a whole is one coherent system. Much like how there are many branches of mathematics (calculus, statistics, etc.) that are compatible with each other and mathematics as a whole is one coherent system. — A Christian Philosophy

These various systems are not necessarily compatible with each other, that's why they are useful in different situations, for different purposes. One works where the other one doesn't. For a simple example, imaginary numbers have a square root of a negative and that's incompatible with the classical understand of negative numbers.

Indeed. Unless the premises are based on tautologies or pure mathematics, then they are based on induction/abduction. This makes the premises uncertain, but they are the most reasonable given the information we have. — A Christian Philosophy

Mathematics is not based in tautologies, it's based in axioms, which are a sort of definition which acts as a premise. The certainty here is based in memory and application, usefulness not truth, and that's why various systems, being useful for various purposes, have differing axioms. Some will argue that the axioms are not even based in usefulness, being purely creative expressions. But even so they get accepted and become conventional because they are useful.

Final cause, also called function, purpose, motive, or end, only applies to things that are designed by an agent with free will. In which case, the efficient cause is called a designer, agent, or thing with free will or free choice. E.g. I choose to go to work instead of staying in bed in the morning for the purpose of making money. In this example, "going to work" is the thing that exists or occurs, "making money" is the final cause, and "the chooser (me)" is the efficient cause. I made a video about this if interested. — A Christian Philosophy

The point I was making is that there is a gap in understanding between the two. If we assume that you, as the person going to work, is the efficient cause of you creating the desired end, making money, the gap in understanding is the question of how your desire to make money causes you to get out of bed and go to work. In all cases of final cause, there is this gap of understanding, of how the final cause (a desire for something), causes the physical activity which is the efficient cause designed to produce the end.

it falls short of dynamic philosophical engagement — Hanover

That's the key point. How many times did it cop out and tell you to seek professional guidance? Something it could not give you.

It was supposed to be an internal discussion paper. — Wayfarer

That's bullshit. It was formulated as a letter, not as a topic for discussion. Unless perhaps, they use AI to write up their discussion topics.

Imagine that, thy could even use AI to discuss their discussion topics, and decide which letters to send out. No wonder Musk quit the team, he saw his worst nightmare coming true, he was being replaced by AI. Next step, the AIs would be producing offspring for him.

If you're now (it seems you are) making a physics argument, I have to just say you're wrong. This is a physics concept that is widely understood as extant and helpful to physicists. If your gripe is with the use of hte word 'instantaneous' fine, but that's not how the word is used in that phrase. It is a proper name, for all intents and purposes, and so your reading is simply inapt. In any case, the term 'instant' does not mean "zero time" unless you're using a rather unsophisticated colloquial definition. "a very short period of time" is the better way to think of the word, and solves your usage issue regardless of your disagreement with the facts of the matter (i.e that instantaneous velocity is a real, measurable thing which physicists use every day). — AmadeusD

I agree about this difference in the meaning of "instantaneous". But Banno does not accept that difference of meaning, and equivocates in his complaints about my explanations. This is a common, recurring problem I have with Banno, which became evident when I demonstrated that he equivocates with the use of "same" in his interpretation of Wittgenstein's private language argument. Instead of acknowledging the tendency to equivocate, Banno doubles down and makes fun of my arguing technique.

Notice that's exactly what Banno was attempting in this thread. Instead of looking at defining "necessary" in a rational, intelligent and meaningful way, as I proposed, Banno attempted to change the subject to discuss modal logic, which excludes "necessary" to some ideal Platonic realm. This leaves "necessary" without any practical import. But then, Banno will continue to use "necessary" in the normal, practical way, while insisting on that ideal definition. That is equivocation.

So in he case of "instantaneous", there is an ideal "instant" which refers to an assumed point in time. I say it's assumed because time flows, and there is no real point in time. So that point in time, the "instant" is an ideal only. In practise, in physics with the use of calculus, a person might determine an "instantaneous velocity". Of course, that so-called "instantaneous velocity" is really the velocity over a period of time, because the instant in time is an ideal, and the accuracy of the determination is dependent on the parameters of the calculation.

For a simplified example, suppose I take a five second period of time, and determine that the velocity of an item in that time period was 5m/s. I could insist that at every "instant" of time in that five second period, the item had that 5m/s velocity. But of course that would be meaningless, and actually false. An "instant" in this sense is an ideal only, so it is meaningless when applied toa physical object, and it is false because I determined the five second period, and divided it evenly, assuming another ideal, perfectly constant motion. Of course that is a simplified example but it applies to accelerated and decelerated motions as well, which assume constancy.

Now we have the same sort of situation in this thread. Banno wants an ideal definition of "necessary", which he represented with "MUST". Of course such an ideal form of "necessary" does not enter into any practical application, just like the ideal "instant" does not enter into the practise. The important point is that just like with the mathematics, we may represent the ideal, and claim that it enters into the practise, with the mode of representation employed, but this claim is actually meaningless and false. The real form of "necessary" which enters into our practise of logic is our decisions as to what is "necessary for", or needed for, our purposes. And this varies according to the situation and principles applied, just like the meaning of "instantaneous" varies according to the application.

Logic is not only a first principle of epistemology (i.e. deduction) but also of metaphysics. — A Christian Philosophy

I would disagree with this, placing metaphysics as necessarily prior to logic. The reason for this, is that as we come to understand the nature of reality it becomes apparent that there are aspects which escape the applicability of those primary three laws. Aristotle described this class of aspect as "potential", and matter is placed in this category. His solution was to allow for a violation of the third law, excluded middle, to accommodate for what may or may not be. The problem is deep though, because the proposal of "prime matter", pure potential, violates the law of identity, because pure potential could not have any form therefore no identity. Aristotle rejected the proposal of "prime matter" in his metaphysics, but if we accept that proposal, then we also allow violation of the second law, noncontradiction, by avoiding identity. This is the case with dialectical materialism, and dialetheism.

So the issue is that we need to adapt our principles of logic to conform to our understanding of reality, and this is why metaphysics is commonly placed as prior to epistemology. The conventional approach has been to produce forms of modal logic, and these roughly follow Aristotle's lead, as exceptions to the third law, being systems to deal with possibility. Notice that I say "systems", plural, because there is a number of possible ways to approach the reality of possibility. This is why metaphysics must be understood as prior to epistemology, because we need principles to choose which system of logic is applicable to the circumstances.

E.g. a four-sided triangle is a contradiction and thus cannot exist in any possible world. — A Christian Philosophy

This exemplifies the problem of definition. The truth of this statement requires a specific definition of "triangle". Someone could propose a possible world in which "triangle" is defined as four-sided, and this possibility renders your statement as false. So that statement places the definition of "triangle" as something completely outside the system of logic, and somehow fixed, thereby creating the necessity of "thus cannot exist in any possible world".

Clearly this is a false necessity, because words can be defined as we please. So in classical logic, definitions enter into the system, being premises, and the necessity is created by acceptance of the definition. So your example really requires another premise, which would define "triangle" as three sided, and by that premise, a four-sided triangle is excluded.

With that, since both deduction and induction/abduction are first principles of epistemology, and these types of reasoning appeal to logic and the PSR respectively, then correspondingly, both logic and the PSR are first principles of metaphysics. — A Christian Philosophy

I agree with this, but the problem is to determine which principles are applicable in which circumstances. This is where metaphysics and epistemology interact. Take your example, someone sees smoke, and concludes that there is fire where the smoke is. If the person used the premise "where there is smoke there is fire", this would be a deductive conclusion. Therefore by your definition the conclusion is logical. However, we can see falsity in the premise, and in the formulation of the premises is where we find the nuances of reasoning.

If we have found fire in every situation that we have found smoke, we still cannot derived the certainty required for "necessary", as explained by Hume. So the truth of inductive premises escapes the certainty for "necessary". Further, we have to look at what "every situation" means. If the person has only seen smoke twice, and each time there is fire, this clearly is insufficient to support the premise. Furthermore, we sometimes loosen up the rules to accept probability. Perhaps seeing fire associated with smoke 99% of the time allows one to accept the premise. Also, there are nuances within the description of "smoke" which need to be considered. A person might have noticed that black smoke is always associated with fire, and white smoke often has no fire, and so the person might be using a more nuanced premise. In short, there are many factors involved in the creation of a premise, and unless the premise is a simple definition, necessity is not provided for. And even with a definition, the defining terms are not themselves defined, because this would produce an infinite regress, so necessity is not absolute even in the case of definition.

I suppose we could identify every possible cause of a given outcome and eliminate them by testing them individually. But this could still leave room for a possible non-physical cause that could not be identified in the field of physics. — A Christian Philosophy

Yes of course, this is the base of the problem, and why dualism forms the foundation for many metaphysicians. There is a fundamental difference between efficient causation which is studied by physics, and final causation which is studied in social studies, and by metaphysics. Since there is a gap between the two, meaning that we do not understand how one acts on the other, the designation of "every possible cause" is sort of meaningless or misleading. The PSR allows for both principal types of cause as "the reason". So if we determine "every possible cause" of the physical type, and are inclined toward concluding 'no reason', this still does not exclude the possibility of a cause of the non-physical type. Therefore the PSR gives us encouragement to keep on seeking the reason for an occurrence even after it has been proven that there is no physical cause for it.

Fine. — Banno

Good, we agree on something. That gives us a starting point. Care to join me on a learning experience, or is it too late to teach an old dog like yourself, new tricks?

I wonder, though, whether you’ve defined such a possibility out of existence, by stipulating that the PSR is and must be true, so that the idea of a thing without a reason is already impossible. — J

Yes, I think that is the very point of the PSR. By making a thing without a reason impossible, by definition (actually 'by law', the law being that principle), we do not consider the possibility of a thing which has no reason. Such a thing has been outlawed. Therefore, the enquiring (philosophical) mind will not be discouraged from seeking the reason for things, when the task gets tough, and something appears to be without a reason. The possibility that it really is without a reason has been outlawed so that we do not get discouraged in this way.

I guess I’m not sure whether you’re offering this connection of reasons with what can be known as a demonstration that the PSR must be true, or as an entailment of what must follow if the PSR is true. — J

The PSR "must be true", to support the philosophical mind, and the desire to know. If we allow that it may not be true, then we allow that we may become discouraged from the task of expanding knowledge to cover all of reality, and then designate particular things as occurring without reason. That is an unreasonable point of view to the philosophical mind with the desire to know.

BTW: There’s a provocative book called No Way: The Nature of the Impossible, edited by a mathematician and a physicist, that collects instances of the debate over what’s possible (including in epistemology) from a wide variety of disciplines, from medicine to music. With a question as big as this, it’s really helpful to hear from people who’ve encountered the problem in a specific situation related to their expertise. Well worth finding a copy if you can. — J

I'll keep that in mind.

Folk can Google it, Meta. Cheers. — Banno

Yes, folk can Google it. But I referred to serious philosophers, and Google does not do the studying for serious philosophers. So again, your claim is irrelevant. At least you are consistent in irrelevance.

I think the point he's driving for is that for a philosopher, the term is ridiculous. It's a totally reasonable and real physics thing though. I suggest his point is irrelevant anyhow, But this seemed to me the crossed purpose there. "instantaneous" doesn't hold it's standard meaning in that phrase. — AmadeusD

Correct, a misuse of the term. We all know that velocity is always an average and therefore no velocity is ever properly "instantaneous". Any measurement of velocity is derived from at least two instants. Banno however, seems to actually believe (or at least argues for) the literal meaning of "instantaneous", just like he seems to believe that what are termed "logical possibilities" are not actually treated as the necessities of modal logic. It appears to be a matter of Banno simply assuming that a word has a specific meaning, without taking the time to adequately understand what the word really means, within the context which it is used.

Your contribution here is pretty much on a par with your rejection of instantaneous velocity - an eccentric irrelevance. — Banno

Every serious philosopher knows that instantaneous velocity is a nonsensical idea. So you are just making a fool of yourself by bringing this up, over and over again in a philosophy forum.

I agree with your defense of the PSR. But I think we can build a stronger defense by showing that the way we infer that the PSR is a first principle of metaphysics is no different than the way we infer that logic is a first principle of metaphysics. What do you think of the following argument? — A Christian Philosophy

I look at logic as a procedure, an activity, something we do. We cannot accurately portray it as "a first principle" because it consists of a number of principles which are applied. We can describe human beings as using logic, and use that as a first principle, i.e. human beings use logic.

On the epistemology side, logic is associated with deduction, and the PSR is associated with induction/abduction.

We accept the laws of logic, not merely because we observe outcomes in reality to be logical (otherwise we could not say that everything must necessarily be logical; only that things happen to be logical), but because our voice of reason, specifically our deductive reasoning, tells us to. If we entertain the idea that some outcomes could be illogical, our voice of reason says "That's illegal". — A Christian Philosophy

Here is the difficulty. Deduction, induction, and abduction, can all be said to be types of logic. Or, we could restrict the meaning of "logic" to deduction, and class the other two in a broader category, as reasoning, along with deductive "logic" as a different form of reasoning. However, no matter how we define the categories of classification, we cannot avoid the fact that there are different forms of reasoning, which employ different principles.

So, if we place severe restrictions on "logic", we cannot say "everything must necessarily be logical", then we exclude the things which are understood by other forms of reasoning. This is why the PSR employs the most broad term, "reason". Then even if we restrict "logic" to a specific form of human reasoning, and we find that some things appear to be illogical, this does not imply that these things are unreasonable, and vise versa.

For example, logical conclusions are judged for validity and soundness. And, basic deductive logic often proceeds from premises which are produced from induction. This means that if we restrict "logic" to refer to the validity of the deduction, an unsound conclusion would still be "logical", yet unsound. So false premises could produce very absurd conclusions, which appear to be very illogical, but we'd still have to say that they are logical conclusions no matter how absurd they are. (Zeno's for example)

Furthermore, we still need to allow ourselves the capacity to judge the principles employed in reasoning. If we allow a more general definition of "logic" and the use of any system of reasoning is called "using logic", then we still need to be able to judge faulty applications. There are many specialized forms of modal logic, and we need to be able to judge the modes of application according to acceptability. This is how I judge Banno's reference to modal logic as unacceptable in the context of this thread.

The PSR, as a principle can be judged similarly. We cannot judge it as to whether it is logical or not, because it says something about logic, and the way that we apply logic in general. That's why I judged it as a valuable principle.

Correct. To draw a parallel with logic again, we sometimes encounter situations that seem illogical, called a paradox. We could adopt an attitude that not all outcomes are logical, or we can hold on to the belief that nothing stands outside of logic and make an effort to solve the paradox. — A Christian Philosophy

Paradoxes are generally produced from the misuse of reasoning. One might apply logic to faulty premises, or misuse the modes of modal logic as Banno does in the context of this thread.

I admit I'm confused about what "unknowable, period" or "not capable of being known by anyone or anything" might mean. Could you clarify that? Would, for instance, the decimal expansion of pi be an example of this? Or, as your post seems to suggest, do we need to understand what alien forms of life might be capable of knowing? That seems an awfully high bar to settle the question. — J

To understand what is meant, we need to consider the context. The PSR says that everything has a reason. So "unknowable" in this context means having no reason. Having no reason would make it fundamentally unknowable.

So the question is, how would we be able to determine that there is no reason for something. If we cannot find the reason, or even judge ourselves as incapable of finding the reason, that does not mean that there is no reason. Making the judgement "there is no reason for X" would only put an end to the search for that reason. Clearly, to the philosophical mind which desires to know, such a judgement would be counterproductive. Therefore the possibility of making this judgement must be excluded. We exclude this possibility with the PSR, which states that there must be a reason for everything.

You showed little understanding of modal logic. — Banno

I haven't been discussing modal logic because it's not relevant. As I explained, you use reference to modal logic as a trick of sophistry. This trick allows you to name as "possible", what the logician takes as necessary for the logical procedure. Therefore you can portray what is required by (necessary for) the logician, as a "logical possibility", instead of portraying it as it truly is in the logician's use, a necessity. Premises are required (necessary) for logical procedure, even if they are called "possibilities". Your reference to modal logic is nothing but a smoke and mirrors linguistic trick.

I can say I'm certain that my cat will never comprehend general relativity (I barely do myself), though I can't prove it. Likewise, we may discover the limits of our own comprehension -- not provably, perhaps, but beyond a reasonable doubt. We would then know that something is not knowable. — J

This is not applicable. That a cat cannot understand something, is a deficiency of the knower. You cannot conclude that the object is unknowable, based on the capacity of the knower, because a more capable knower could know it. Likewise, even if we determine the limits of the human capacity of knowing, and discover that some objects are beyond our ability to know them, this does not imply that they are unknowable.

I bolded "is" and "as" in your quote because I think what you're pointing to may be the idea that to know "something" as unknowable, is already to know something about it, hence a sort of contradiction. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, but there are other ways of being unknowable. — J

No, that's not really what I meant. I was asking directly, how could you determine that a specific thing, X, is unknowable. Finding out "I can't know X" doesn't mean X is not knowable. Even determining that X is beyond the capability of all human knowers doesn't imply that X is not knowable. This is because there are other types of knowers, like your cat example demonstrates. Living beings evolve, and knowledge evolves. So reference to the current condition, and knowing ability of life on earth, cannot be used as an indication as to whether X is knowable. So, I asked the question, how could you determine that X is not knowable? Wouldn't this actually require knowing X? I cannot look at a thing and say that since it is impossible for me to understand it, it is therefore unknowable. What type of information about that object can I use to draw that conclusion?

Despite you, ↪Metaphysician Undercover and ↪A Christian Philosophy best attempts there's precious little here supporting sufficient reason as a principle, intelligent design or god. — Banno

I'm not really interested in the intelligent design aspect, and I really don't understand the claimed relation.

However, sufficient reason, as a principle, supports the will to know, as I explained, and is therefore a very a valuable principle.

This statement caught my eye, looking over this thread. Isn't it too strong? If philosophy should discover that some things aren't knowable, at least by us, wouldn't that be worth knowing, part of "all things" philosophy is interested in? Maybe the word you want is "limited" rather than "misdirected." — J

How do you think it could be possible to discover that something is not knowable? I think it is impossible to know something as not knowable.

Wishful thinking on your part. — Banno

That's what the quest for knowledge is, "wishful thinking". Denying the PSR is demoralized thinking.

My argument in this comment is not an inductive argument. Rather, it says that since induction/abduction is necessary to find truth, and since it is equivalent to the PSR (inference to the most reasonable explanation), then we can trust our voice of reason when it says that everything must have an explanation. Logic can be defended the same way. — A Christian Philosophy

I don't think it's a matter of "trust" here, it's a matter of having nothing else to go on. If we want n explanation of things, we must assume that the things are explainable. To assume otherwise, even the possibility that something is unexplainable, would be an attitude of discouragement.

One could adopt the attitude "it is possible that there are things which cannot be explained", but such an attitude is not conducive toward producing knowledge. This attitude would provide a reason not to seek knowledge of things which are difficult to explain. It would give the premise required to conclude that there is no explanation for X, and that conclusion provides the required reason not to seek the explanation for X. Therefore the possibility of "no explanation for X" must be excluded if one is to have the desire to explain X.

In everything which we seek an explanation for, (and there is no reason to exclude anything here), we must maintain the premise that there is an explanation for that thing. If we allow the possibility that there is no explanation for something, then we also allow the possibility that we would stop seeking the explanation of that thing, and this is counterproductive to the quest for knowledge, and the application of the principle of "infinite", which allows no end until completion.

Simply put, denial of the PSR is unphilosophical. The philosophical mind seeks knowledge of all things, and the proposition that some things may not be knowable implies that philosophy is misdirected.

Your understanding of modal logic is on a par with your grasp of physics. — Banno

Your understanding of necessity is nonexistent. If you want to create a definition of "necessary" which is based in something other than logic, or reason, then let's see your principles. Otherwise your use of "MUST" when you say "That we look for, or expect to find, a reason simply does not imply that there MUST be a reason", is self-contradictory nonsense.

It's quite obvious to anyone with a reasoning mind, that if we are looking for something, then there is a reason for us to be looking for it. If what we are looking for is the reason why we are looking, this does not imply that there may be no reason. It only implies that the reason is unknown. You jump to the unsupported conclusion, that there may not be a reason. However, all evidence indicates that if someone is looking for something, there is a reason for that activity, so your insinuation, that there may not be a reason is nonsense.

Why is that different from saying:

"Let 'Fido' mean 'the dog whose existence is necessary,' therefore Fido exists." Have I just created Fido? Or did Fido exist before the definition? — bert1

I didn't say it is different. When you say "Let 'Fido' mean 'the dog whose existence is necessary,' therefore Fido exists.", you provide no time constraints. Therefore your question of "before" is not relevant, and not answerable from the information provided.

There is a difference between accepting a premise for the purpose of a logical proceeding, and questioning the acceptability (truth or falsity) of the premise. The premise is what is necessary for the procedure, and when accepted, what is stated is a necessity, as what is necessary for the logical procedure. If the premise is not accepted it is considered to be a possibility.

Banno appears to be proposing an interpretation of "modal logic" by which accepting the premise provides us with something that is possible, rather than something which is necessary for the logical procedure. But of course that is just a trick of sophistry. The premise states what is necessary, and even if we put the name "logical possibility" to that necessity, it doesn't change the fact that what is now called a "possibility", is the thing which is necessary for the proposed logical procedure. Therefore the "possibility" is taken as a necessity, necessary for the logical procedure, despite being assigned the name "possibility".

You fall into the atheist trap of self-contradiction, if you try to deny that God who is defined as the necessary being, is not a being.

You must play the game by the rules of the definitions, or else you equivocate.

On your logic, if someone goes looking for the Loch Ness Monster, then there must be a Loch Ness Monster. — Banno

Of course. How could one look for the Loch Ness Monster unless that is something which could be looked for?

That we look for, or expect to find, a reason simply does not imply that there MUST be a reason. — Banno

Yes it does imply "that there MUST be a reason", because the necessity of logic is based in the human need to make sense of things. Logic is a product of human minds, and logical necessity is a type of human need. Therefore, if we look for, expect to find, or in any way need a reason for X, this implies that there MUST be a reason for X. "MUST" means means nothing more than we need a reason for, and we would not look for the reason unless it was deemed as needed.

To believe that "MUST" could be based in anything other than human need is what is nonsense.

They seem to agree with Eagleman that acting on input is key. — Patterner

"Acting on input" is the wrong attitude, because we need to understand actions as prior to input. Notice the example, hitting the button is prior to the flash.

The problem I’m finding with your posts, is that you agree with a whole bunch of contradictory propositions. — Wayfarer

That's what I was pointing out, but Patterner quit talking to me.

The racket goes like this: predict a future Trump calamity, like a depression or nuclear war or fascist takeover. When it never arrives, promote oneself and one’s own failed prophesies as part of the efforts that helped stop it. Rinse, repeat. — NOS4A2

What about the inverse situation, if one makes a correct prediction? If for example, someone correctly predicts Trump's assassination, would that person be accused of aiding and abetting, or even conspiring? A correct prediction is very suspicious looking.

If this were not so, you could identify a more objective frame by the experience of time passing more quickly there. — noAxioms

Why would time seem to pass more quickly in a more objective frame?

I wonder if time isn't the thing we experience, so much as it is one of the things that must exist to facilitate experience. — flannel jesus

That's like what Kant said, time is an a priori intuition, facilitating the possibility of sense.