Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

[Fujaro]

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

There are "sytems of logic", but logic itself (ie, A=A) is not one of them. Logic is used to create these systems of logic for use in specific areas of knowledge.

Reason is used to create the things you name, restating logic over and over, defying time and again axiomas that were considered absolute and trivial truths. There is no holy grail of pure logic.The idea that there is an immutable form of logic that underpins all of reality may be right, not the idea that we can be sure to have found it.

Only when it is shown that we can have a mapping from logical enities to real entities.

There is no "real" and "non-real" without logic.

Real and non-real imho suggest something other than logical vs real. But that aside, I agree that a model of existence is involved. But not that it is based on pure logic. It's in fact a working model for existence that has been around for quite a while and that so far has been substantiated significantly and proven very usefull indeed. According to which logic does from A=A follow that it is usefull to discern logical and real? We should expect that from the pure logic of A=A we can understand why such a perhaps artificial division proves to be usefull to us.

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

1 + 1 = 2 is a truth about Nature, and so is 1 + 1 + 1, etc. Hence pure logic can deliver countless truths about nature.

For which part of nature is it truth? One proton added to another proton might give you two protons but then again it might give you completely new particles when you bang ‘m hard together (like soon to be demonstrated in the LHC). Hence pure logic does not map to reality in a straightforward manner at all. You need the context of reality itself to decide on that.

And may I remind you that in the electron example above you have countless electrons. What does it mean to add another electron to it?

So when the Higgs boson is found with LHC, it won’t be the achievement of people only using this very absolute pure logic but it will be the achievement of people making use of all kinds of logic in relation to empirical data, models of reality, trial and error, induction and deduction. And in this process the mappings between reality and logic are not regarded as absolute truths but as tentative mappings. Of course the logical sentence ‘1+ 1’ where every component of the sentence is defined as a logical abstraction within logic itself, still adds up to 2 (ring modulo variants not considered!) . This is the logical conceptual side of it that’s universally true, by which logicians mean that in the form of this abstraction it is always true logically, not that it is necessarily true for things we count in nature. And that’s even true when nature is totally a product of our mind.

The unprovable principle A ≡ A is self-evidently true logically only within the logical system that adopts it.

All logical systems adopt logic, otherwise they wouldn't be logical.

There is no such thing as a concise superfundamental logic that underpins all logical systems. There are logical systems that don't adopt the logic of the excluded middle or logical systems that leave room for the fact that there is more than one possible state of existence at the same time. That’s all a matter of choice of rules and axiomas by man. You can’t deduce much from A=A alone. It has been shown fruitfull in the past however to choose the axiomas and rules in such a way that these, at least to the human mind, have some resemblance of nature. Euclid’s Geometry was such a choice. It is shown to be complete and consistent in a technical (read: logical) sense. And it still pays of in space flight, but has been shown to not be the final answer about the geometry of nature which is still a part of our existence. The more we know about reality the more elaborate the logical tools have become and the greater the diversity of logical systems used. Logic itself is not an immutable body of thought.

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.

A particular system of logic might be limited, but not logic itself.

The term 'logic itself' can only refer to some specific system of logic or to a container of poorly or undefined mystic logic that can be used as a deus ex machina at any time. Religious logic might be a good name for it. What will it be for you?

Logic can describe absolutely anything. For example, the emotion of love is described by logic as "the emotion of love". And the Infinite is described by logic as "the Infinite". There is nothing it can't deal with.

Hasn’t it occurred to you that the ‘dealing with’ most of the time takes place after nature has thought us a tough lesson? Logic does not preceed nature. But I agree that with mystified religious logic everything is possible.

The example about love really says it all. It shows exactly how far A=A will take you. Now we only need a project to sum all these usefull absolutely true sentences and all philosophers will be hailed into the cities like Roman emperors returning from campaign. Let’s call it the Human Truth Project and just wait for the funds raised for it by some wealthy endorsers of truth.

[DHodges]

Say you wanna map the spin state of the electron to A. Of course, as a true philosopher you have no prior knowledge of what the hell a spin state of an electron is, but someone suggested it at dinner and it somehow stuck on you. It has a nice ring to it somehow. So you do your mapping, but just as you thought you had it on paper, that same guy that suggested it to you, says: "well, you do know that the electron spin state only exists in the measurement" WTF, you think, is he talking about? A=A means that A is itself, but how can we decide on that if it is undecidable on both ides of the equation? This would mean that we can't instantiate A=A to a certain value of A, that only the abstraction <some undecidable value for the spin of my fav electron> = <some undecidable value for the spin of my fav electron> is true but not as the electron is measured. There is some resentment of trusting that guy from dinner in the first place and it is all over your face when you leave your desk with on it a paper with your newest hard core truth in the galaxy.

That an electron can be in a superposition of states in no way violates A=A.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Fujaro, how do you define the word "reality"?

[Tomas]

Fujaro, how do you define the word "reality"?

No doubt. There's more-than-a-few windbags on this forum.


.

[Fujaro]

Say you wanna map the spin state of the electron to A. Of course, as a true philosopher you have no prior knowledge of what the hell a spin state of an electron is, but someone suggested it at dinner and it somehow stuck on you. It has a nice ring to it somehow. So you do your mapping, but just as you thought you had it on paper, that same guy that suggested it to you, says: "well, you do know that the electron spin state only exists in the measurement" WTF, you think, is he talking about? A=A means that A is itself, but how can we decide on that if it is undecidable on both ides of the equation? This would mean that we can't instantiate A=A to a certain value of A, that only the abstraction <some undecidable value for the spin of my fav electron> = <some undecidable value for the spin of my fav electron> is true but not as the electron is measured. There is some resentment of trusting that guy from dinner in the first place and it is all over your face when you leave your desk with on it a paper with your newest hard core truth in the galaxy.

That an electron can be in a superposition of states in no way violates A=A.

Just read carefully what I wrote about it. From the snapshotview Kevin proposes it means you get <undecidable value> = <undecidable value>. Well that's 100% logically true but it conveys zero information. Also true is <we know nothing for sure>= <we know nothing for sure >. It's 100% logic but it aint information. More in particular because Kevin as a result from his snapshot mapping won't allow for a time dependent Schrödinger equation into the picture that would give information about the time-dependant nature of the electron.

But let me give you another reason why you can't be sure about the snapshot mapping:

d) The degree of freedom for mapping A=A allows for other types of mapping

There is a more promising alternative and that is to map the existence in time of the electron to A. Just as Kevin proposes for his own existence. As long as the electron exists A=A does hold and this provides a better basis to develop a model on than the snapshotview. One can relate to the electron as an entity existing in time and interacting with other particles. It will not be enough though, I must haste myself to say. But this shows that this logic that looks so unrelenting firm is not exact either.

[Fujaro]

Fujaro, how do you define the word "reality"?

No doubt. There's more-than-a-few windbags on this forum.


.

Another one that comes emptyhanded to the table.
Please explain me pure logically Tomas, how to map reality to logic with A=A alone?

[Fujaro]

Fujaro, how do you define the word "reality"?

I've already defined it before, making use of Wittgenstein's suggestion:
Reality is all that is the case.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Reality is all that is the case.

Okay. Are you on the same page? How has David (or, if you must, Kevin) defined reality?

[Fujaro]

Reality is all that is the case.

Okay. Are you on the same page? How has David (or, if you must, Kevin) defined reality?

I dunno. Haven't defined it for me up till now. Looks something like:reality is everything that can be mapped to A=A.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Fujaro: I suppose that might be a good question to ask one of them, then. Everyone's using the word. I just hope everyone is talking about the same thing.

Tomas: It's a Thales quote, shortened to under 30 characters. :) I'm guessing he was referring to Egyptian priests.

[Tomas]

Fujaro: I suppose that might be a good question to ask one of them, then. Everyone's using the word. I just hope everyone is talking about the same thing.

Tomas: It's a Thales quote, shortened to under 30 characters. :) I'm guessing he was referring to Egyptian priests.

It's his annoying habit of relying on all these dead people (Wittgenstein in this case) for his referrals. Another time, it was Einstein.

Dead men (women) don't talk.

It's like you asked him "what is HIS view of reality" (real).


.

[Fujaro]

Fujaro: I suppose that might be a good question to ask one of them, then. Everyone's using the word. I just hope everyone is talking about the same thing.

The question has been asked by me. I'm guess they're tired of their own forum. All those people you have to stuff with the A=A thing. I can imagine it's kind of boring. I suggested there should be some standard replies (insertable with special BBCode button?) for all the morons that expect some deep shit over here. A fine start for the immutble Human Truth Lexicon I'd say.

[Fujaro]

Fujaro: I suppose that might be a good question to ask one of them, then. Everyone's using the word. I just hope everyone is talking about the same thing.

Tomas: It's a Thales quote, shortened to under 30 characters. :) I'm guessing he was referring to Egyptian priests.

It's his annoying habit of relying on all these dead people (Wittgenstein in this case) for his referrals. Another time, it was Einstein.

Dead men (women) don't talk.

It's like you asked him "what is HIS view of reality" (real).


.

Well, you rely on your own infinite wisdom then. Fits right in here.

[Pye]

Fujaro, you are doing some seriously decent work here; hope you're not running out of patience.

I logged my hours here some time ago discussing the limits of A=A , and so the fresh salvos at it are clarifying and interesting.

To conclude this expendable post (in the grand scheme of things), I'd also like to greet clyde by taking note of what fine form I find him in here as well. This is a rich thread; best one going.

To state that a thing is equal to itself means you must first locate a definitive thing, too. Good luck there . . . .

[Diebert van Rhijn]

To state that a thing is equal to itself means you must first locate a definitive thing, too. Good luck there . . . .

Quite right. Since that would be a huge delusion. But that doesn't mean that [locating] is exactly what you and I are doing all along, no matter how we might believe in some unthingyness of things. Under the hood this localizing is all we do actually and therefore absolute.

How much more simple can it get served?

[Steven Coyle]

simple mathematics (1+1+1).

[Kevin Solway]

This is about identifying the existence of a thing such as an electron as propagating in time. You say that A is not the same electron as B. They are very different things. Thereby you say it does not persists itself in time.

The only way we could suggest that it might persist in time is if we had solid empirical evidence, and with empirical evidence we are always in the realm of mere speculation.

The only logical valid relations you under your assumptions possibly can have is within the snapshot. Thus there can be no identity-relation along the time axis and there can be no causal relationships (presuming that causal relations require a non-zero time interval).

There are also valid logical relations between observations ("snapshots", as you call them).

The past is the cause of the present, and the present is the cause of the future. These are causal relationships that happen in time.

In every snapshot an electron mysteriously is present. There is no connection between the properties say charge of the electron A in the first snapshot and the charge of electron B in the second snapshot.

Science may suggest, through empirical observation, that there may be a connection, but it is only speculating.

But you are right that there is no definite connection between the first electron and the second one (other than the definite connection between an electron and the rest of the Universe).

There is no time-aspect to existence.

There is a time-aspect in the existence of physical things, such as electrons.

For example, the first electron definitely has effects. There are consequences to its existence. It's just that we don't know that the second electron is one of them.

Every instance of existence is a new existence.

Yes, but everything new is a reformulation of something else. In the case of the two electrons, science cannot say, except in speculation, that the second electron is a reformulation of the first one.

So the sentence ‘I think, therefore I am’ says nothing about your now and is untrue?

Let's translate 'I think, therefore I am' to be "I observe the appearance of an 'I', therefore there is an 'I'", so that we don't confuse it with anything Descartes might have thought.

Now this observation is a purely logical one (A=A) that takes place outside of time. Every time we observe the 'I', it is indeed a new 'I', but it is also exactly the same 'I' as every other time we observed it, in the same way that the number 1 is always the same.

In my opinion my self-existence is foremostly something that propells itself through time while every snapshot as such is totally irrelevant for who I am. I am foremostly means I am existing along a timeline.

You believe that all the memories you have of your previous life are "yours", and that you have persisted over time. But how do you know that "your" memories aren't someone elses memories that were implanted in your brain?

How do you know that your entire consciousness, along with all its memories, wasn't created by a computer just a moment ago?

You can't know these things. It is only speculation on our part that our memories are our own and that they weren't all created in a millionth of a second by a computer.

There is always a timeline, with one thing following another, but we cannot be sure of the exact course of events (eg, that one particular electron causes another particular electron, or that one particular person causes another particular person).

I say that the current view on things is that there are things in nature that have an identity-relation along the time axis and that this observation has considerably more use and meaning than seeing the universe with everything in it as a set of unrelated snapshots. Nothing but lethargy can follow from the snapshot stance.

Certainly, we have evolved to link certain appearances, and so long as we are alive we can't avoid making those links. Wisdom is knowing when those links are merely speculated and when they aren't.

Placing the 'I' outside the snapshot logic is illogic. Why do one thing for the electron and a completely other thing for your own existence. This sounds like religion to me.

The 'I' also exists only in snapshots, but every time we take the snapshop the 'I' is identical to the last snapshot (just as with the number 1).

In the case where we imagine the 'I' to be a changing physical body, there too we are only making snapshots, and we are only speculating that there is a close relationship between the different snapshots.

[Blair]

Fujaro: I suppose that might be a good question to ask one of them, then. Everyone's using the word. I just hope everyone is talking about the same thing.

The question has been asked by me. I'm guess they're tired of their own forum. All those people you have to stuff with the A=A thing. I can imagine it's kind of boring. I suggested there should be some standard replies (insertable with special BBCode button?) for all the morons that expect some deep shit over here. A fine start for the immutble Human Truth Lexicon I'd say.

The configuration is always different, but the elements are always the same, this is the key to understanding A=A.

[Fujaro]

A=A cannot be the whole truth about existence
P1) non-trivial sentences exists
P2) A=A as such, because it involves no mechanism for other than trivial sentences cannot constitute non-trivial sentences about existence
C1) therefore, even assuming that A=A is true, A=A cannot be the whole truth about existence

[Fujaro]

simple mathematics (1+1+1).

In some mathematics (modular arithmetic) 2+2=3.
In fact this is a very common arithmtic we use with clocks.

[Fujaro]

This is about identifying the existence of a thing such as an electron as propagating in time. You say that A is not the same electron as B. They are very different things. Thereby you say it does not persists itself in time.

The only way we could suggest that it might persist in time is if we had solid empirical evidence, and with empirical evidence we are always in the realm of mere speculation.

A=A itself also cannot be proven. The only reason to accept it is the congruence with reality as you perceive it. So in that you are also using empirical evidence. And since you do this you might also allow other ways of doing this. You can't construct existence from logical thought alone.

The only logical valid relations you under your assumptions possibly can have is within the snapshot. Thus there can be no identity-relation along the time axis and there can be no causal relationships (presuming that causal relations require a non-zero time interval).

There are also valid logical relations between observations ("snapshots", as you call them).

If you'd be consequent imo there wouldn't be any. Please provide some exampels of what you mean.

The past is the cause of the present, and the present is the cause of the future. These are causal relationships that happen in time.

In your snapshot view there is no interaction between objects, because everything is frozen in time. You cannot possibly conclude anything about causation between different snapshots without inductive reasoning, you only have allowed yourself deductive logic. Why would you, every snapshot has another electron in it.

In every snapshot an electron mysteriously is present. There is no connection between the properties say charge of the electron A in the first snapshot and the charge of electron B in the second snapshot.

Science may suggest, through empirical observation, that there may be a connection, but it is only speculating.

It's inductive reasoning. Deduction alone can't do the job. Acknowledging that truths established by science are tentative is exact also. Deductive logic does not necessaily supply non-trivial truths about existence. This strict kind of philosopher is not participating in knowledge gaining but is like a donkey refusing to walk on because on logic alone it can't be deduced that the road will lead anywhere. A road = road kinda situation. But of course from inductive reasoning a tentative conclusion about the road might give an indication about the donkey food at the end of the road.

There is no time-aspect to existence.

There is a time-aspect in the existence of physical things, such as electrons.

You have only instantanious existence within the snapshot when you say that in every snapshot there is another electron.

For example, the first electron definitely has effects. There are consequences to its existence. It's just that we don't know that the second electron is one of them.

The word 'effect' you use is based on experience of existence through time, or in other words on the inductive comparison (pattern recognition) of snaphots in a row. You are not allowed to use it in your strict snapshot view.

Every instance of existence is a new existence.

Yes, but everything new is a reformulation of something else. In the case of the two electrons, science cannot say, except in speculation, that the second electron is a reformulation of the first one.

I see no contradiction to my statement.

So the sentence ‘I think, therefore I am’ says nothing about your now and is untrue?

Let's translate 'I think, therefore I am' to be "I observe the appearance of an 'I', therefore there is an 'I'", so that we don't confuse it with anything Descartes might have thought.

Now this observation is a purely logical one (A=A) that takes place outside of time. Every time we observe the 'I', it is indeed a new 'I', but it is also exactly the same 'I' as every other time we observed it, in the same way that the number 1 is always the same.

Your reformulation does no quite make it any clearer. Your first sentence (I observe the appearance of an 'I') contains two I's, both are in itself (existential) appearences not logical pointers in the mind of the subject. There is, again according to your own snapshot logic, no reason to asumme that the two existential appearences placed in a row constitute exactly the same 'I'. By saying that it logically is the same I, you already indulge in inductive reasoning for you have connected the first existential I-apperance connected to a logical I-appearance which in turn you have connected to the second existential I-apperance. To do this you throw in something new ("it is also exactly the same 'I' as every other time we observed it") but this clearly shows your inductive assumptions. For it is conceivable in logical sense that between the first and the second statement a new I is inserted with the collective memory of the old I. You cannot be any more certain about this conclusion than about the existence of an electron through time.

In my opinion my self-existence is foremostly something that propells itself through time while every snapshot as such is totally irrelevant for who I am. I am foremostly means I am existing along a timeline.

You believe that all the memories you have of your previous life are "yours", and that you have persisted over time. But how do you know that "your" memories aren't someone elses memories that were implanted in your brain?

This one backfires on your own argument, see above.

How do you know that your entire consciousness, along with all its memories, wasn't created by a computer just a moment ago?

Did I say that I believe it as absolute truth?

I say that the current view on things is that there are things in nature that have an identity-relation along the time axis and that this observation has considerably more use and meaning than seeing the universe with everything in it as a set of unrelated snapshots. Nothing but lethargy can follow from the snapshot stance.

Certainly, we have evolved to link certain appearances, and so long as we are alive we can't avoid making those links. Wisdom is knowing when those links are merely speculated and when they aren't.

True wisdom is knowing how to gain knowledge, the path itself if you will, not a vegatative state in trivials like A=A. The A=A philosophy essentially denies the aspect of time as part of existence, although from it follows time=time. This shows that A=A has no bearing on existence itself, it's a purely logical concept, placed not only out of time, but also out of reality.

Placing the 'I' outside the snapshot logic is illogic. Why do one thing for the electron and a completely other thing for your own existence. This sounds like religion to me.

The 'I' also exists only in snapshots, but every time we take the snapshop the 'I' is identical to the last snapshot (just as with the number 1).

In the case where we imagine the 'I' to be a changing physical body, there too we are only making snapshots, and we are only speculating that there is a close relationship between the different snapshots.

I need no concept of a physical body to refute the existence in time of I in the snapshot logic.

[Fujaro]

Fujaro, how do you define the word "reality"?

No doubt. There's more-than-a-few windbags on this forum.


.

Another one that comes emptyhanded to the table.
Please explain me pure logically Tomas, how to map reality to logic with A=A alone?

Well, are you gonna show the world you are not a windbag yourself?

[Blair]

The fact that you are reading and responding to these words is proof enough that A=A.

The ego will twist and turn and wriggle and whine and winge and insist that A is not A, but the ego is wrong.

A=A, that is the only truth you ever need to comprehend to give your existence meaning.

[Fujaro]

The fact that you are reading and responding to these words is proof enough that A=A.

The ego will twist and turn and wriggle and whine and winge and insist that A is not A, but the ego is wrong.

A=A, that is the only truth you ever need to comprehend to give your existence meaning.

Is that your ego talking or some copy cat?

So you say: <reading and responding> therefore A=A.

Well, that's clear then. Bravo, you are the first to have actually proven A=A.
To yourself that is. My standards for proof are somewhat more rigorous.

[Blair]

You are affirming A=A, whether you (or your ego) likes it or not.

A cannot be anything but A. It's that simple, whether you view it as the letter A, or anything broader.

Something is what it is, and nothing is what it is.

You can only understand this if your consciousness resonates truth only, ie .no anthropomorphic lens.