Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

[Kevin Solway]

If "Everything always changes" is itself an immutably true statement about reality

"Everything always changes" is actually not true, since there are things which do not change (such as change itself).

"Everything always changes" is only true if by "everything" we are only referring to those things which do in fact change.

[brokenhead]

If a logical truth necessarily applies to all things in existence, then it will apply to every member of both subsets.

You are merely asserting this. This is what I am asking you to prove and you know it.

It doesn't matter where such a truth, as a conceptual construct, happens to reside. Even if only one person in the entire Universe thinks of a logical truth which necessarily applies to all things, then that one truth from the location inside that person's head will instantly embrace everything there is.

You're not - ulp! - saying that Consciousness is primary, are you?

How can something be seen to be infinite without using logical proof?

I was conceding the point to you, David. For my argument, it does not matter whether the set I was referring to is infinite or finite. It is simply the set of all things that are not logically true statements; it seems that such a set is infinite. Have it your way, then. Let it be finite. Does it affect our argument?

[brokenhead]

If "Everything always changes" is itself an immutably true statement about reality

"Everything always changes" is actually not true, since there are things which do not change (such as change itself).

"Everything always changes" is only true if by "everything" we are only referring to those things which do in fact change.

I already admitted I was spinning my wheels on that one, Kevin. I rebooted and started over, to mix a metaphor and be redundant all at the same time.

[Matt Gregory]

David or Kevin: How can A=A hold in the physical world independently of consciousness?

[Leyla Shen]

It doesn't matter where such a truth, as a conceptual construct, happens to reside. Even if only one person in the entire Universe thinks of a logical truth which necessarily applies to all things, then that one truth from the location inside that person's head will instantly embrace everything there is.

You're not - ulp! - saying that Consciousness is primary, are you?

No. Your faith in a fairytale personal god stops you from thinking.

Truth, as a conceptual construct, is still truth and thus embraces everything.

What does the italicised phrase above mean to you and how does "consciousness is primary" necessarily proceed from it?

[brokenhead]

It doesn't matter where such a truth, as a conceptual construct, happens to reside. Even if only one person in the entire Universe thinks of a logical truth which necessarily applies to all things, then that one truth from the location inside that person's head will instantly embrace everything there is.

You're not - ulp! - saying that Consciousness is primary, are you?

No. Your faith in a fairytale personal god stops you from thinking.

Truth, as a conceptual construct, is still truth and thus embraces everything.

What does the italicised phrase above mean to you and how does "consciousness is primary" necessarily proceed from it?

Objection, your Honor! Let David fight his own battles. No coaching from the peanut gallery. The sentence:

Truth, as a conceptual construct, is still truth and thus embraces everything.

...is a namby-pamby, womanish type of thought. Stop with all the embracing. "Truth embraces everything" says precisely nothing.

[Leyla Shen]

Objection, your Honor! Let David fight his own battles. No coaching from the peanut gallery.

Overruled. And if you insult me again, I shall hold you in contempt...

[David Quinn]

David or Kevin: How can A=A hold in the physical world independently of consciousness?

I do not know such a world.

David;

My phrasing did not exclude “non-abstract entities, such as physical objects”. Since we define a thing by pointing at it and you are able to point to “non-abstract entities, such as physical objects”, the thing is defined, and since “non-abstract entities, such as physical objects” are defined, they are included. I hope that helps clear the confusion.

But my point is: in your phrasing of the bolded text, identity seems to mean an objective essence (an inherent or self-existing self) and my phrasing does not posit an objective essence.

Okay, I see.

Your rewording isn't really needed because an objective essence isn't really being implied. Whenever we point to something, no matter what it is, we are only ever pointing to an appearance. An appearance always presents as a form and thus is identifiable. It is in this sense that the appearance "has" an identity.

The appearance of a mirage-lake is in fact an appearance of a mirage lake, and not something else. Thus, even things which lack inherent existence have an identity.

So (we agree) “there is no basis to launch a refutation” answers the question “what if there is no platform?” But it does not answer the question “what if there is no identity?”

An "appearance without an identity" cannot exist or be perceived. It is a contradiction in terms.

-

[brokenhead]

Objection, your Honor! Let David fight his own battles. No coaching from the peanut gallery.

Overruled. And if you insult me again, I shall hold you in contempt...

Objection humbly withdrawn, in the most grovelling manner, your High... er, your Honor.

[David Quinn]

If a logical truth necessarily applies to all things in existence, then it will apply to every member of both subsets.

You are merely asserting this. This is what I am asking you to prove and you know it.

I've already demonstrated a proof of this a day or two ago - i.e. utilizing the concept of a "thing" (defined as a portion of the totality). Given that every member of your two subsets necessarily qualifies as a "thing", it follows that whatever one can logically learn about "things" will necessarily apply to every member of the two subsets - that is to say, to all phenomena in existence.

It doesn't matter where such a truth, as a conceptual construct, happens to reside. Even if only one person in the entire Universe thinks of a logical truth which necessarily applies to all things, then that one truth from the location inside that person's head will instantly embrace everything there is.

You're not - ulp! - saying that Consciousness is primary, are you?

Like Leyla, I've got no idea where you pulled that one from. It certainly has no connection to what I said.

How can something be seen to be infinite without using logical proof?

I was conceding the point to you, David. For my argument, it does not matter whether the set I was referring to is infinite or finite. It is simply the set of all things that are not logically true statements; it seems that such a set is infinite. Have it your way, then. Let it be finite. Does it affect our argument?

That's rather up to you. It doesn't affect my point either way.

-

[Matt Gregory]

David or Kevin: How can A=A hold in the physical world independently of consciousness?

I do not know such a world.

Not even through deduction? After all, the things we perceive have to be caused by something . . . something aside from what is in our minds because our minds don't encompass the whole of Nature.

[Fujaro]

"Everything always changes" is itself an immutable truth about reality, arrived at logically. So Diebert is right in pointing out that you are contradicting yourself.

Fujaro is also contradicting himself in a similar manner.

David, I am not positing that everything always changes. So I am curious to know what you mean by 'in a similar way'.

The similarity is that you are both using (what you think are) logical truths about reality in order to prove that it is impossible to arrive at logical truths about reality. In Brokenhead's case it is "everything changes" ; in your case, it is Godel's theorem, among other things.

It so seems that you are not fully understanding my point here. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (GIT) is not the essential element of it. The essential element is that logical truths are not self-evidently applicable to all of reality. The unprovability that A=A holds or does not hold in nature already shows this. For that is what you and others argue with the alleged absoluteness of A=A in all domains of reality. My argument consists from a number of observations and for only one of these (logical completeness ) I make use of GIT.

1) There is no trivial intrinsic reason why one logical system should be preferred above another logical systems as underlying reality

The striking example is Euclidean Geometry (EG). Euclid believed that his axioms were self-evident statements about physical reality. And for centuries EG had been assumed to be part of the absolute truth about the world and uniquely related to reality. EG was how the world really was. The belief in its absolute truth was widespread and it was believed this conclusively showed that human reason could grasp something of the ultimate nature of things. If challenged that this was beyond the power of our minds to penetrate, they could always point to Euclidean geometry as a concrete example of how and where this type of insight into the ultimate nature of things had already been possible. Henceforth the discoveries of Bolyai, Lobachevskii, Gauss, and Riemann, that other geometries existed, but in which Euclid’s parallel postulate was not included, had a major impact on philosophy. The development of non-Euclidean geometries and non-standard logics meant that mathematical existence now meant nothing more than logical self-consistency. It no longer had any necessary requirement of physical existence.

2) Provability is partly dependent on other logical systems than in which the statement is stated

For some logical systems completeness and consistency cannot be proven from within that logical system. GIT shows that a system of axioms can never be based on itself, i.e. statements from outside the system must be used in order to prove its consistency. This indeed could mean that other forms of logic are needed to constitute a complete and consistent system. And indeed for some special cases where undecidable statements could not be resolved from within axiomatic logic, other forms of logic have provided proof, but in general it hasn't been proven that this always can be done.
Please observe that logical completeness is a prerequisite for logic to underly all of reality in a meaningfull way for all of reality is all that is the case. Someone making the claim that all reality follows from logic should substantiate this claim with evidence.

3) Logical completeness is not the same as completeness of truths about reality

Logical completeness of a logical system means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system. Observe how different this logical completenes criterion is from the colloquial meaning of completeness: a generating principle for all aspects of existence. Logical completeness has no trivial meaning for all that exists in reality. It can have meaning though for some things that exist in reality, but only when it is shown that we can have a mapping from logical enities to real entities. This is the interface between science and logic. Without this mapping logic has no validity in the physical realm and possibly other realms of existence.

4) Logic and math alone do not, and cannot, generate new truths about nature.

What you don't seem to acknowledgeis the difference between deduction and induction (the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations). There is no a priori reason why reality should conform to some special kind of logic. This problem is essential to undestanding absolute truth about reality. Science does not arrive at models and theories by application of logic alone. It arrives at them by inductive processes. Induction however cannot be reduced to a set of logical rules (Problem of Induction). Scientists seek patterns in data and observations and that requires more than a one way process of inferring truths from fundamental truths. It's a two-way process where by trial and error reality is mached with logic and vice vera. Only what works best survives.

It is enough to know that some things change in reality to realize that immutable truth can't describe all aspects of reality and therefore cannot be complete in the sense I described. I am not positing that A=A does not ever hold in reality for certain mappings of A to reality (it might hold for instance for the total energy content of our universe). I am positing that the mapping of A to the phyiscal realm is a separate step that does not involve logic alone.

This only shows that you don't really understand what A=A means. I'm not having a go at you here. You're obviously intelligent, but the subject of A=A is subtle and difficult to understand.

It all comes down to this: No matter where you care to point to in reality - whether it be to a particular phenomenon such as a quantum event, or to a principle such as change - you are, in this very act of pointing, affirming the principle of A=A.

This is because the thing being pointed to necessarily has an identity and cannot be anything other than what it is. If it didn't have an identity, we wouldn't be able to point to it. A quantum event is a quantum event and not something other. Change is change and not something other

Your argument to not provide a more accurate account of course cannot itself be an argument against my stance. The thing you are missing is that whatever logic you come up with it is a logic from a conceptual world with no necessary analogy in the physical realm nor in the purely conceptual realm. To identify which things from our perception of reality map to which logic is not a matter of one-way logic but of trial and error.

In fact Kevin shows this with his attempts to interpret A=A in terms of the electron. He arrives at a multiverse sort of interpretation of QM where every instance in time of the electron corresponds to another electron, but thereby fails to account for the instant creation and annihilation of these infinite numbers of strangely suggestive aligned electrons thus defined. The instant creation and annihilation keep contradicting the A=A mantra, though.

In order to have the power to contradict A=A, a thing or an event needs to have an identity of some kind. Otherwise, there exists no platform from which to launch the refutation. The existence of such a platform, however, immediately proves that A=A is still operating as ever.

When you truly understand A=A, you will see that it is utterly impossible to contradict it. Nothing can ever contradict it.

No matter how weird or counter-intuitive quantum events seem to be, they still adhere to the principle of A=A at all times. They might have the power to overturn our fixed notions of what we think should be there, but they can't overturn the principle of A=A itself.

The unprovable principle A ≡ A is self-evidently true logically only within the logical system that adopts it. QM indicates that some entities of reality cannot be mapped to this logical system but still exist in reality.

Jamesh concludes that not just electrons but all particles for that matter must be illusory. Again this is an attempt to map reality as we perceive it to A=A (the choice of which is random btw, why not take A=B) that he employs as a skyhook.

I think he was arguing that particles are merely one expression of "fundamental matter" under certain circumstances and, therefore, the belief that it permanently exists as particles is an illusion. In other words, fundamental matter has a malliable form.

This would be more of a religious stance than a purely logical one as long as he does not show the logical connection between logic and the alleged expression of fundamental matter. I think he should at least supply some sustaining evidence for it. But maybe he can eloborate on this himself.

I don't really have that form do not exist the idea that fundamental matter comes in thr form of partciels is illusory. This time with a devastating result for reality as such. His stance in my opinion is possible (as odd as this may seem to you) but not probable. It in essence is a solipsistic stance. The problem with solipsism is that it fails to acknowledge (let alone effectively describe) the patterns in this illusory world most people would identify as the laws of nature. In its pure form solipsism even means the denial of other conscious minds, but when this restriction is lessened the weakened solipsism that does acknoledge the existence of other concious minds can't account for the striking correspondences between the illusory realities these conscious minds observe. Also it can't discriminate all possible solipsism-like truths about reality. For instance, this illusory reality might have been superposed on our consciousness by some yellow striped leprachaun in the zillionth dimension unknown to us. Or by what we would call (if there only was a means by which to project this to our illusory reality that did right to the thing) a red baboon in the zillionth plus one dimension. Nearly everything goes really. Hardly in correspondence with the immutable truth chosen as the skyhook for it all.

Believing in solipism is just that - a belief. It has nothing to do with uncovering what is logically true. In this instance, what is logically true is that it is impossible for a person to determine for sure whether or not other minds exist. It is essentially unresolvable.

You need to take care, in your crusade against logical truth, not to bring religious beliefs and philosophical fancies into the mix. That is, you need to take care not to mistake logical truth for what it is not.

-

That's exactly my point David. Logic itself should not become a religious dogma of reality. This certainly is the case when it is claimed that from logic follow universal absolutes for the whole of existence. I am fully aware of the fact that with asking questions about the applicability of logic to reality and the provability of logical statements, it seems as if I'm undermining logical truth itself. And many mysticists, religious people, and a huge army of crackpots have abused these questions to proselytize their particular beliefs and unsubtantiated viewpoints. But this concerns the quest for absolute truth and we should not shy away from these questions. I hope you can perceive that I am not the mystifying type. I deeply value logic and mathematics, and I acknowledge that it has profound contribution to our understanding of reality, but the question whether logic has its limits is very valid on the interface of logic and science and is often debated in philosophy of science. I therefore resent it that you identify my questions as a crusade against logical truth. Looking at the scientific method one cannot deny that it is more a trial and error thing than a deduction from logical truths. And that imho is a rather compelling enigma.

"All models are wrong, but some are useful." - George E. P. Box, 1979

Logic, be it modal logic, propositional logic, paraconsistent logic, multi-valued logic or any other kind of logic one can think of so far, fails to describe all aspects of reality and therefore is incomplete in this sense. It indeed seems that any kind of logic fails to describe the whole of the logical realm, let alone the whole of reality.

[Fujaro]

A(x) is always identical with A(x), so the law of identity is still meaningful.

If A=A is to be taken as a absolute universal truth, it must hold for every possible combination of t1 and t2, e.g. A(t1)=A(t2).

[clyde]

David;

My phrasing did not exclude “non-abstract entities, such as physical objects”. Since we define a thing by pointing at it and you are able to point to “non-abstract entities, such as physical objects”, the thing is defined, and since “non-abstract entities, such as physical objects” are defined, they are included. I hope that helps clear the confusion.

But my point is: in your phrasing of the bolded text, identity seems to mean an objective essence (an inherent or self-existing self) and my phrasing does not posit an objective essence.

Okay, I see.

Your rewording isn't really needed because an objective essence isn't really being implied. Whenever we point to something, no matter what it is, we are only ever pointing to an appearance. An appearance always presents as a form and thus is identifiable. It is in this sense that the appearance "has" an identity.

The appearance of a mirage-lake is in fact an appearance of a mirage lake, and not something else. Thus, even things which lack inherent existence have an identity.

So (we agree) “there is no basis to launch a refutation” answers the question “what if there is no platform?” But it does not answer the question “what if there is no identity?”

An "appearance without an identity" cannot exist or be perceived. It is a contradiction in terms.

-

David;

OK. Without implying ‘right’ or ‘better’, but to clarify:

You wrote, “An appearance always presents as a form and thus is identifiable.”

Appearances do not “present” themselves, but are the presentations. And I would not use the term “form” as I associate form with sense perceptions and, for example, thoughts which may not have form (as sense perceptions) are appearances. So I would say:

All appearances (that which is distinguishable and/or namable) lack inherent existence; i.e., lack identity apart from their appearance.

So, we agree, an appearance is an appearance (or A=A). So? So, even this truth is an appearance (it is distinguishable and namable, and we point to it) and lacks inherent existence.

As the young say: sweet!

clyde

[Fujaro]

The instant creation and annihilation keep contradicting the A=A mantra

Why?

A=A doesn't say anything about how fast things are created and destroyed.

You fabulated that the electron spring in and out of existence with this phrase:
Kevin wrote: "t1 would be mapped to A1, and t2 would be mapped to A2. Whether A1 has any close causal relationship with A2 is only speculation — which is to say that it is in the realm of empirical science."

It's not really important how many times you remap A, remapping to A2 means the end for A1 or else we would count many more electrons.

[brokenhead]

I've already demonstrated a proof of this a day or two ago - i.e. utilizing the concept of a "thing" (defined as a portion of the totality). Given that every member of your two subsets necessarily qualifies as a "thing", it follows that whatever one can logically learn about "things" will necessarily apply to every member of the two subsets - that is to say, to all phenomena in existence.

Why is it a given that every member of the two subsets is a "thing"? You are qualifying my argument, and therefore not addressing it directly. I am trying - once again - to demonstrate the obvious limits of logical argument when dealing with Reality. On the one hand, you have the set of all logically true statements (set A). On the other hand, the set of everything that is not a logically true statement (set B). The union of these two sets is the set of all things and we call it Reality. The intersection of these two sets is the empty set and contains no thing by definition, since B is the complement (in Reality) of A. Now if you are asserting that Reality itself does not restrain the power of logical reasoning, so far we must be in agreement. If not, please stop me here and tell me why not. I have not characterized either set A or B aside from their definitions, except to say that A might be an infinite set, and we agree that it is mute if B were also allowed to be infinite. My question remains: by what mechanism can we map elements of A to elements of B? There can be no logical link or mapping between the sets, because such a link would be solely an element of set A, and cannot, by definition, impinge upon or interact with anything in set B.

[David Quinn]

I've already demonstrated a proof of this a day or two ago - i.e. utilizing the concept of a "thing" (defined as a portion of the totality). Given that every member of your two subsets necessarily qualifies as a "thing", it follows that whatever one can logically learn about "things" will necessarily apply to every member of the two subsets - that is to say, to all phenomena in existence.

Why is it a given that every member of the two subsets is a "thing"?

You honestly can't see how each member is necessarily a portion of the totality?

Even the two subsets, by their very nature, are portions of the totality, let alone the members they each contain within.

-

[David Quinn]

You wrote, “An appearance always presents as a form and thus is identifiable.”

Appearances do not “present” themselves, but are the presentations. And I would not use the term “form” as I associate form with sense perceptions and, for example, thoughts which may not have form (as sense perceptions) are appearances. So I would say:

All appearances (that which is distinguishable and/or namable) lack inherent existence; i.e., lack identity apart from their appearance.

That's good enough for me.

So, we agree, an appearance is an appearance (or A=A). So? So, even this truth is an appearance (it is distinguishable and namable, and we point to it) and lacks inherent existence.

It may lack inherent existence, but it still remains timelessly true.

-

[David Quinn]

The similarity is that you are both using (what you think are) logical truths about reality in order to prove that it is impossible to arrive at logical truths about reality. In Brokenhead's case it is "everything changes" ; in your case, it is Godel's theorem, among other things.

It so seems that you are not fully understanding my point here. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (GIT) is not the essential element of it. The essential element is that logical truths are not self-evidently applicable to all of reality. The unprovability that A=A holds or does not hold in nature already shows this. For that is what you and others argue with the alleged absoluteness of A=A in all domains of reality. My argument consists from a number of observations and for only one of these (logical completeness ) I make use of GIT.

1) There is no trivial intrinsic reason why one logical system should be preferred above another logical systems as underlying reality

The striking example is Euclidean Geometry (EG). Euclid believed that his axioms were self-evident statements about physical reality. And for centuries EG had been assumed to be part of the absolute truth about the world and uniquely related to reality. EG was how the world really was. The belief in its absolute truth was widespread and it was believed this conclusively showed that human reason could grasp something of the ultimate nature of things. If challenged that this was beyond the power of our minds to penetrate, they could always point to Euclidean geometry as a concrete example of how and where this type of insight into the ultimate nature of things had already been possible. Henceforth the discoveries of Bolyai, Lobachevskii, Gauss, and Riemann, that other geometries existed, but in which Euclid’s parallel postulate was not included, had a major impact on philosophy. The development of non-Euclidean geometries and non-standard logics meant that mathematical existence now meant nothing more than logical self-consistency. It no longer had any necessary requirement of physical existence.

None of this affects the kind of work I do as a philosopher.

The key thing to realize is that there is nothing within Euclidean geometry which necessitates that it applies to all of reality, or indeed to any aspect of reality. Euclid was wrong in thinking that it did. It is simply a mathematic system, a conceptual map, which happens to have many useful applications in the empirical world. The same is true of non-Euclidean geometry.

The kind of philosophic logic that I am interested is very different, as it involves using concepts and definitions which do necessarily apply to all aspects of reality. A=A is such an example. Other examples involve the concept of the "totality" (defined as utterly everything), and "thing" (defined as a portion of the totality). Unlike Euclidean geometry, there is no mapping involved, so the issue of how the map relates to reality doesn't arise.

In other words, it is wrong to compare mathematical systems with philosophic logic, and to use the limitations of the former to discredit the latter, because the dynamics involved in each discipline are entirely different. It would be like using the Bible to discredit the scientific method. Totally inappropriate.

2) Provability is partly dependent on other logical systems than in which the statement is stated

For some logical systems completeness and consistency cannot be proven from within that logical system. GIT shows that a system of axioms can never be based on itself, i.e. statements from outside the system must be used in order to prove its consistency. This indeed could mean that other forms of logic are needed to constitute a complete and consistent system. And indeed for some special cases where undecidable statements could not be resolved from within axiomatic logic, other forms of logic have provided proof, but in general it hasn't been proven that this always can be done.
Please observe that logical completeness is a prerequisite for logic to underly all of reality in a meaningfull way for all of reality is all that is the case. Someone making the claim that all reality follows from logic should substantiate this claim with evidence.

Firstly, no one here is making the claim that all reality follows from logic (whatever that might mean). What I do claim is that logic can uncover the fundamental truths which govern all things.

True, of itself, logic cannot uncover all the various details and empirical relationships which exist in the world. That is a matter for scientific investigation, of which logic only plays a part. You are right to make that point. However, philosophy isn't concerned with empirical details. It is concerned with the broader principles which underlie all phenomena.

Secondly, given that Godel's theorem was itself arrived at logically, the question arises as to how it has been proven to be true. If it is be accepted as true, then it immediately contradicts the claim that logic cannot uncover truths and prove them to be true. If it isn't to be accepted as true, then it immediately loses its ability to make sure judgments about anything. In effect, it becomes worthless as a philosophic tool.

3) Logical completeness is not the same as completeness of truths about reality

Logical completeness of a logical system means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system. Observe how different this logical completenes criterion is from the colloquial meaning of completeness: a generating principle for all aspects of existence. Logical completeness has no trivial meaning for all that exists in reality. It can have meaning though for some things that exist in reality, but only when it is shown that we can have a mapping from logical enities to real entities. This is the interface between science and logic. Without this mapping logic has no validity in the physical realm and possibly other realms of existence.

Any philosopher worth his salt stays well away from constructing "logical systems". He simply reasons in a straightforward manner from definitions. As such, none of what you wrote above has any application to him.

4) Logic and math alone do not, and cannot, generate new truths about nature.

What you don't seem to acknowledgeis the difference between deduction and induction (the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations). There is no a priori reason why reality should conform to some special kind of logic.

Well, there is. It's just a matter of opening your eyes to it.

As soon as anything exists, no matter what it is, it necessarily has a form and thus an identity - which means that A=A automatically comes into play. Thus, straight away it can be seen that A=A is built into the very nature of existence. A tree exists as a tree by virtue of being a tree and not something other.

Given that A=A is the very kernel of all logical thought, it means that all of existence is necessarily governed by the laws of logic. By logic, I essentially mean deductive logic - that is, the logic that we all utilize in every coherent thought we have. In other words, I'm not referring to the contrived and more complicated off-shoots of logic - such as boolean, fuzzy, non-Euclidean, etc.

It is false to think of deductive logic as a "system" and thus to put it on the same level as the many contrived logical systems which exist today. Deductive logic, with A=A at its core, forms the basis of all logical systems, just as it forms the basis of all coherent thought. It was deductive logic which formulated all those contrived logical systems in the first place, and it is deductive logic which continues to assess their worth even now.

This problem is essential to undestanding absolute truth about reality. Science does not arrive at models and theories by application of logic alone. It arrives at them by inductive processes. Induction however cannot be reduced to a set of logical rules (Problem of Induction). Scientists seek patterns in data and observations and that requires more than a one way process of inferring truths from fundamental truths. It's a two-way process where by trial and error reality is mached with logic and vice vera. Only what works best survives.

While that's true of science and inductive logic, it isn't true of philosophy and deductive logic. A good philosopher never makes use of inductive logic, except in practical matters or when formulating hypotheticals. He is fully aware that induction cannot yield certainty and, as such, deductive logic is his one and only tool of proof.

It all comes down to this: No matter where you care to point to in reality - whether it be to a particular phenomenon such as a quantum event, or to a principle such as change - you are, in this very act of pointing, affirming the principle of A=A.

This is because the thing being pointed to necessarily has an identity and cannot be anything other than what it is. If it didn't have an identity, we wouldn't be able to point to it. A quantum event is a quantum event and not something other. Change is change and not something other

Your argument to not provide a more accurate account of course cannot itself be an argument against my stance. The thing you are missing is that whatever logic you come up with it is a logic from a conceptual world with no necessary analogy in the physical realm nor in the purely conceptual realm. To identify which things from our perception of reality map to which logic is not a matter of one-way logic but of trial and error.

I've already addressed this above.

What you say is perfectly true if we confine ourselves to a scientific outlook and recognize only the scientific method as the means of gaining knowledge of reality. But such confining is unnecessary and blocks out the entire realm of philosophic knowledge.

IIn order to have the power to contradict A=A, a thing or an event needs to have an identity of some kind. Otherwise, there exists no platform from which to launch the refutation. The existence of such a platform, however, immediately proves that A=A is still operating as ever.

When you truly understand A=A, you will see that it is utterly impossible to contradict it. Nothing can ever contradict it.

No matter how weird or counter-intuitive quantum events seem to be, they still adhere to the principle of A=A at all times. They might have the power to overturn our fixed notions of what we think should be there, but they can't overturn the principle of A=A itself.

The unprovable principle A ≡ A is self-evidently true logically only within the logical system that adopts it. QM indicates that some entities of reality cannot be mapped to this logical system but still exist in reality.

A=A is beyond all logical systems, while supporting them all. It cannot be refuted in any system or in any realm at all, for the reasons given in my last post. If you think it can be, then it means you have not yet understood it.

Believing in solipism is just that - a belief. It has nothing to do with uncovering what is logically true. In this instance, what is logically true is that it is impossible for a person to determine for sure whether or not other minds exist. It is essentially unresolvable.

You need to take care, in your crusade against logical truth, not to bring religious beliefs and philosophical fancies into the mix. That is, you need to take care not to mistake logical truth for what it is not.

That's exactly my point David. Logic itself should not become a religious dogma of reality.

That's true. But neither should rejecting the core relationship of logic to reality be turned into a religion as well, as I fear it has done in modern academia.

I agree with you that all dogma should be rejected out of hand, of whatever variety. But genuinely recognizing the role of logic in reality isn't a dogmatic act. Rather, it is a matter of opening one's eyes and recognizing what is self-evidently true.

Looking at the scientific method one cannot deny that it is more a trial and error thing than a deduction from logical truths. And that imho is a rather compelling enigma.

The scientific method is a powerful and wonderful tool, no doubt about it. But it isn't the be-all and end-all of the knowledge game. The philosophic method is also a powerful and wonderful tool, capable of unearthing some amazing knowledge in its own right.

Each method focuses on a different area of knowledge and compliment each other perfectly. The scientific method is excellent for uncovering empirical relationships, but useless for uncovering what is absolutely true in life. The philosophic method, in turn, is useless when it comes to uncovering empirical relationships, but excels in the area of absolute truth.

To confine oneself to just one of these methods to the exclusion of the other is unnecessary and counter-productive. There is no need for us to live in such a close-minded fashion.

-

[clyde]

You wrote, “An appearance always presents as a form and thus is identifiable.”

Appearances do not “present” themselves, but are the presentations. And I would not use the term “form” as I associate form with sense perceptions and, for example, thoughts which may not have form (as sense perceptions) are appearances. So I would say:

All appearances (that which is distinguishable and/or namable) lack inherent existence; i.e., lack identity apart from their appearance.

That's good enough for me.

So, we agree, an appearance is an appearance (or A=A). So? So, even this truth is an appearance (it is distinguishable and namable, and we point to it) and lacks inherent existence.

It may lack inherent existence, but it still remains timelessly true.

-

David;

Maybe. But we can say that appearances are conditional, not absolute; and arise and pass away based on conditions (which are themselves appearances).

clyde

[David Quinn]

So, we agree, an appearance is an appearance (or A=A). So? So, even this truth is an appearance (it is distinguishable and namable, and we point to it) and lacks inherent existence.

It may lack inherent existence, but it still remains timelessly true.

Maybe. But we can say that appearances are conditional, not absolute; and arise and pass away based on conditions (which are themselves appearances).

Yes, that's another example of a truth which as a concept lacks inherent existence, and yet is timelessly true.

-

[clyde]

So, we agree, an appearance is an appearance (or A=A). So? So, even this truth is an appearance (it is distinguishable and namable, and we point to it) and lacks inherent existence.

It may lack inherent existence, but it still remains timelessly true.

Maybe. But we can say that appearances are conditional, not absolute; and arise and pass away based on conditions (which are themselves appearances).

Yes, that's another example of a truth which as a concept lacks inherent existence, and yet is timelessly true.

Maybe. But of course you may to cling to "timelessly true", but not forever.

clyde

[Leyla Shen]

What the he-l-l-l-l are you talking about, clyde??

An appearance of truth is TRUTH, not a flippen apple!

Perhaps you only have the right conditions in your life for maybes to present an appearance, making you unable to discern truth?

[Leyla Shen]

(Sorry, David, but you seem to draw out responses that are strangely irresistible to me!)

[clyde]

What the he-l-l-l-l are you talking about, clyde??

An appearance of truth is TRUTH, not a flippen apple!

Perhaps you only have the right conditions in your life for maybes to present an appearance, making you unable to discern truth?

Leyla;

The point is: the appearance of truth is the appearance of truth (A=A), not TRUTH as an inherently (self-existing) thing with an objective essence.

clyde


p.s: An apple! Have you reflected on why you chose an apple in this situation?