Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Kevin Solway »

brokenhead wrote:
A thing only "exists" when observed.
And yet we say that the earth existed before life appeared upon it.
It is imagined to have existed, but there's no way for us to tell with certainty that it did.

If the earth existed before life appeared on it, then it falls within the category of things we do not know, and exists as such.
I am making the point to show the limitations of logic in as clear-cut a way as I know how.

The only limitation of logic is that it can never be what it is not.

Logic can never be illogic.

This is not a real limitation, therefore logic does not have a limitation. It is just what it is. And it can be applied to anything.
Any part of a logically true statement about something, such as a premise, belongs to set B.
I have no idea what you are on about here.

Let "A" be something. Thing "A" is itself and not other than itself. And that is a logically true statement about "A". Why on earth you would want to think that a part of that statement is not a logically true statement, is beyond me.

I think you need to completely reformulate your argument.
"If all Australians hate American beer, and Dan is an Australian, then Dan hates American beer." This is a logically true statement and, as such, belongs to set A. But if I said, "All Australians hate American beer," this would not be a logical truth, and would therefore be a "thing" in set B. In fact, it might not be a truth at all (though I rather suspect it is.) Now if I said, "Dan is an Australian," this would be a true statement, but it would not be a logically true statement, and therefore would also be a "thing" in set B.
In short, a statement is a logically true if there is no possibility of it being false.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Kevin Solway »

Fujaro wrote:Maybe the appearance of the past in the now is a false one
The appearance of it can't be false.

The past exists for essentially the same reason that A=A. It does so because of memory.
If so, how is it possible that there appears an appaerance of a logical "I"?
All things, such as the "I", arise because they are caused to.
Kevin Solway wrote:We can imagine a category which contains all unknown things (ie, all things not as yet consciously experienced). In this manner, all the things that we are not consciously aware of, exist.
But what about the categories you can't imagine?
They are all part of the category of unknown things. I can imagine all unknown things being part of the one category.
. . . you call it the obervation of "I". Following your terminology so far this means it is an appearance, as I suggested to you. And since the appaerances are within snapshots you demolish your own argument with this.
It doesn't matter that things are appearances within snapshots, since snapshots, by definition, exist within time, and the "I", outside of time altogether.
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Fujaro »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:At some point one must accept the foundations of logic as true, or no logic will emerge at all.
Isn't that in a nutshell where you were arguing against before?

What happens if no logic would emerge? What are the consequences? Unknown for sure!
There is a huge difference between 1) accepting it as absolute truth and 2) accepting it as a tentative truth that has strong resemblances with reality as experienced.

What I argued against is (1), for it falsely suggests that we (humans in general) or some of us (say enlightened ones) have direct access to absolute truth, while no rigorous evidence, be it empirical, logical or otherwise, is presented. Some of the proponents of (1) define it as a personal hotline with god (theism), others as a mysterious force from nature (something-ism) or as a magical infallible device of a priori knowledge not to be questioned itself implemented into our being in an even more elusive way.

This Appeal to Absolute Truth I'm very suspicious of. For it can be used, and historically has been used, to provide a nice and cosy shelter to foster all kinds of pseudo babble, crackpotism and delusional worldviews reaching all the way into our moral thought and judgement of others. IMO for now we should accept that man has no means to directly access absolute truth. Just asserting absolute truth imo is defeat of reason instead of victory. We do have a fairly crude criterion to assess knowledge though, and that is the usefullnes of the models of reality in terms of predictive power.

Man's nature seems to be primarily inductive thinking. We see patterns in nature and our thought alike. The pattern of an actor-object model (so common to our view of ourselves as an agent acting in a world) for instance has led many of us believing that we ourselves must be the object of some superior actor. Both inductive and deductive reasoning have their limits, but are badly needed tools to understand some of the world. Together they can be very powerfull indeed, but we always should be sceptic about the absoluteness of reached conclusions knowing that their basic tenets are not that absolute. It might turn out to be all that is needed.
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Fujaro »

David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:Well, I really don't think that logic (or philosophic logic as you call it) isn't compatible with science. My statement would be that they need each other as in symbiosis. And I have stated such several times before. But I do think that you and Kevin are using the word 'logic' as a trojan horse into the arguments presented. There is a real issue here in your perception of deductive logic versus inductive logic. Only the former leads to truths in a strict sense and at least Kevin also agrees on this. In the above reply you become very fuzzy about the actual logical rules you are using to infer that A=A is true. All you say about it is that it is a logical step, that it is not just assuming. But you don't provide rigorous logical evidence you demand from your opponents.

I did, but you're not seeing it.

Surely you can't fail to understand that in order to construct any kind of proof or dispoof at all, identifiable evidence must be called upon. And surely you can't fail to understand that evidence which is identifiable necessarily conforms to the principle of A=A. If it didn't, we wouldn't be able to observe it, let alone identify it.

It is clear, then, that "refuting A=A" falls into the same category as a "square circle". It is a contradiction in terms.
I'm all in favour of evidence but against the claim that reality must abide a specific logic that is based on specific axioms. A square circle is right out illogic and I don't propose such a thing, but a circle as a two dimensional existential imprint of a three dimensional cilinder is not. For a truth to be the absolute truth it isn't enough to know the limits of a given statement. Remember how you and Dan suggested in the podcast with Victor that an absolute truth should be true in all possible worlds.
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:Although I do acknowledge that from experience A=A is pretty hard to deny, there is no logical evidence for it. Russell once proposed to test it empirically, but that ran into obvious problems with the lack of aboluteness about empirical measurement.
I've long known Russell to be an idiot of the highest order, but he never fails to surprise me with the scope of his idiocy.

Are you seriously saying that he thought A=A could be proven or dispoven through empirical testing? And worse, that after setting out to perform this task, he eventually realized that it was not feasible due to the lack of absoluteness in empirical observation?

Words fail me.
You are judging a person who sought for rigour in logic (he endorsed the Hilbert program among other things) while at the same time you fail to supply ultimate deductive evidence for your claims. Words fail me.
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:Everything I read on the subject denies very strongly that a logical proof for it exists.



Perhaps you should stop reading for awhile and resolve the matter properly in your own mind. The logica proof is there if you're willing to find it.
Please don't give up on your own requirement for rigour in logic. You haven't been able to present the logical proof here for the infallible a priori knowledge capacity you are relying on. I have presented many arguments here that should spark some scepticism about your central thesis. Be brave, be honest, be courageous as you suggest to all visitors of this forum.
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:Finally Kevin comes forward with an appeal to knowledge a priori ("logic is automatically built-in to the conscious mind") and thus all hinges on the truth of this statement. Well the statement has had a strong proponent in Kant, but ever since Kant it has been heavily debated among philosophers. To claim this direct link to The Absolute, you should be able to give a detailed account of how this is supposed to come about or it should be distrusted.


The proof lies in the fact that it impossible to be conscious and have coherent thoughts without being conscious of forms (i.e. distinguishable appearances that have identity). Consciousness without forms is no consciousness at all.


This 'final' proof of yours will not suffice for it relies on several unsubstantiated claims one of which is the assertion that your A=A logic applies in every region of reality (homogeneity of logic in reality), even regions we don't (yet) have knowledge of. You therefore have no deductive logical reason to believe what you are asserting. Logical squares can turn out to have existential connections to logical pyramids (see below).
David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:As I see it, you are in a dilemma. Allowing inductive reasoning removes rigour from your deductive stance and opens the door to other inductive axiomas as more promising guiding principles, prohibiting inductive logic is the end of the application of A=A to existence.


A=A can be applied either inductively or deductively - and just as meaningfully in each case. Currently, you are only open to the possibilities of the former. That's understandable, this is how we have all been taught.
I take it this means you are not on the same track with Kevin who in word categorically turns down the use of inductive logic for rigorous proof. Please elaborate.

David Quinn wrote:
Fujaro wrote:Furthermore I do think that I can point to a thing in reality without referring to rigorous A=A. I simply restrict myself to a limited set of properties to define that the thing is A. I can do that logically, and I can do that empirically. So I allow that I might discover empirically that this table in the ninth dimension that I yet can't investigate in no way is the table I thought it was. I would from it suggest another way of dealing with A=A. And I also allow that I might discover empirically that this table has ome proprties in the second spatial dimension I had overlooked up till then. I would allow my own fallible judgement. From this I'd like to suggest another way of dealing with A=A. The central problem from reality that is adressed with the A=A is the problem of identity. Not the A=A as a logical statement is the real issue at hand, but the meaning of identity in the real world. When can we be sure about the identity of a thing in a reality that may have hidden properties at the moment?


None of this is relevant.

To illustrate, consider a pyramid in 3-D space being inserted perpendicularly into a 2-D plane where the flatlanders live (I trust you are familiar the flatlander analogy). From the flatlander's perspective, the pyramid presents as a square. That is all they know of the object. To them, it is a square and nothing else. And yet a being in 3-D space can see that it is a pyramid.

Now, how is the principle of A=A affected by all of this? It isn't affected at all. The flatlanders observe a square and can realize that they are not seeing a circle or some other shape. Likewise, the 3Ders observe a pyramid and can realize that they are not seeing a cylinder or some other object. A=A is in full operation here.

Is the object really a square or a pyramid? The question has no meaning because objects are always observed in context. Is the object both a square and a pyramid at the same time, thus violating A=A? No, it isn't. It is simply an object that presents as a pyramid in 3-D space and as a square in 2-D space. So again, A=A is not violated.

If the object truly violated A=A no one would be able to experience it. It wouldn't be able to exist in the first place.

Well, suppose that in this example there is no more to it than the three dimensions considered, then what in this excercise constitutes the whole and absolute truth? Is the true identity of the object the logical 2-D square, the logical 3-D pyramid or is part of that absolute truth that the square observed by the flatlanders is existentially connected to a 3-D pyramid? That last bit is essential to the absolute truth in your example. Both separate views can deny there is a connection between the views by saying they limit themselves to 3-D or 2-D reality, but then flatlanders say that square B adheres to B=B and 3-D beings say that pyramid A adheres to A=A. The flatlanders will fail to recognize the existential connection between square and pyramid (for instance the causal chain may be broken for flatlanders but existing in the 3D reality of pyramids). Because of this I'd say it is a pretty strong example of denying A=A as an absolute truth about reality. Also observe that when you limit A=A to known dimensions you are exactly doing what I suggested earlier as an alternative guiding principle for identifying things in reality. You restrict its application to known territory. But then you also should refrain from drawing absolute conclusions for what you labeled elsewhere as the Totality. You miss the relation between the square and the pyramid as a possibly meaningful aspect of this Totality.

So please don't assert that it all is irrelevant. It shows lack of confidence in your own statements. My stance is relevant because we wanna know the truth about reality, not about the application of logical statements to separate parts of it.

Your example has a strong analogy with the proposals made in M-brane theory where is suggested that the world we observe is a holographic impression of a higher dimensional reality (the holographic principle). In this model of reality our reality is existentially connected to this higher dimensional reality and the existential connection is very crucial indeed for explaining the very basis of laws of nature observed in our part of reality. Of course this theory wasn't solely based on the rigour of deductive logic but needed some inductive reasoning and pondering on data gathered from experiment (it's primary tenets were suggested by advances made in theoretical physics on black holes). And it cannot be stressed enough that M-brane theory hasn't passed any test of experiment yet and that we should be sceptic at all times. But as a conceptual case imho this suffices to refute your example as evidence and seriously doubt your central thesis.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

brokenhead: Any part of a logically true statement about something, such as a premise, belongs to set B.

Kevin Solway: I have no idea what you are on about here.
It is very simple. A logical truth is something that is necessarily based on something that is a truth but ultimately rests on something that is not a logical truth as such.

For instance, to say a thing cannot be other than itself is not a logically true statement, for it requires definitions, which are not themselves logical truths. A=A presupposes AdefA, where the symbol "def" stands for "is defined as." Therefore, a logically true statement would be: "If AdefA, then A=A." This is required in order to make this logically true statement: "If A=A, then AnotequA cannot be true." Here, "notequ" means "does not equal" or "is not the same as."

This is a crucial point. Another premise, which in itself is not a logical statement but enables us to construct logical statements, is the statement "Let every portion of the Totality be a 'thing.'" Yet another is : "Let any such 'thing' be representable by the symbol A." To say "A thing cannot be other than itself" is therefore not a logical truth in and of itself. A logically true statement would take the form: "If the previous two statements are true (premises), then a thing cannot be other than itself."

Kevin, my point is simply that a logical truth cannot be debated. Yet debates do and shall always exist. What we debate are premises and therefore conclusions.
It [the earth before life began] is imagined to have existed, but there's no way for us to tell with certainty that it did.

If the earth existed before life appeared on it, then it falls within the category of things we do not know, and exists as such.
Therefore, any proposition about the origin of life is equally valid, as long as it seems to account for what we are able to observe now.
The only limitation of logic is that it can never be what it is not.

Logic can never be illogic.
But it is limited by the statement A=A, to which all logic must ultimately appeal, and which is, itself, not a logical statement, nor is it an illogical statement, but rather, simply, a definition.

For instance, X+Y is decidedly not the same "thing" as Y+X. In many algebras, called noncommutative algebras, (X+Y)notequ(Y+X). This is a general rule in a noncommutative algebra, yet the following (logically) true statement holds: "Iff X+Y=A AND Y+X=A, then X+Y=Y+X." Note that this also, as every logically true statement must, assumes the logical premise A=A. (For those readers who may not have seen it before, "Iff A, then B" means "A implies B" AND "B implies A." "Iff" is read "If and only if.")
Let "A" be something. Thing "A" is itself and not other than itself. And that is a logically true statement about "A". Why on earth you would want to think that a part of that statement is not a logically true statement, is beyond me.

I think you need to completely reformulate your argument.
Because to say "Thing 'A' is itself and not other than itself" is not a logically true statement as it is given. Rather, it is a definition used as a proposition and can be part of a logical truth. Remember, a logical truth cannot be debated. We have said that any portion of the Totality is a thing. Let a crossing guard be a thing, as, being part of the Totality, it must be. Let us call it thing "A." Let a dentist be a thing. Let us call it thing "B." Let Mrs. Jones be thing "C." Crossing guard A can be the dentist B, Mrs. Jones C, working in her spare time. That is, unless we define thing "A" differently. I have debated the clause above "... and not other than itself."
In short, a statement is a logically true if there is no possibility of it being false.
Yes! Exactly my point! A logical truth cannot be debated.

This was my rationale behind laboriously defining sets A and B. Definitons belong to set B, as they are not logically true statements. Notice that both A and B contain true statements.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Fujaro, you have yet to provide the one counter-example that matters, namely that there exists a single form of logic (deductive or otherwise) without self-identity. Is there any logic where the premises do not imply themselves? Or, where two identical arguments lead to different conclusions?

Phrased a third way, is there a single form of logic where
1. A
2. B
is not necessarily the same as
1. A
2. B

Otherwise, your arguments are revolving around trivialities. Implying that there might be such a logic is not, in itself, a refutation of self-identity. Without this critical counter-example, all your words boil down to an emphatic, substanceless "no".
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

When is a fish not a fish?

Post by DHodges »

Fujaro wrote:Furthermore I do think that I can point to a thing in reality without referring to rigorous A=A. I simply restrict myself to a limited set of properties to define that the thing is A. I can do that logically, and I can do that empirically. So I allow that I might discover empirically that this table in the ninth dimension that I yet can't investigate in no way is the table I thought it was. I would from it suggest another way of dealing with A=A. And I also allow that I might discover empirically that this table has ome proprties in the second spatial dimension I had overlooked up till then. I would allow my own fallible judgement.
What you are saying here doesn't deny A=A, it denies that A="A" - that is, a thing might not be what you think it is.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

brokenhead,
Definitons belong to set B, as they are not logically true statements.
You claim this, but how could a definition be false?
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by DHodges »

brokenhead wrote:This was my rationale behind laboriously defining sets A and B. Definitons belong to set B, as they are not logically true statements. Notice that both A and B contain true statements.
This might be a good time to bring up undecidability - i.e., there will necessarily be statements which you will not be able to specify whether they are [logically] true or not.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:brokenhead,
Definitons belong to set B, as they are not logically true statements.
You claim this, but how could a definition be false?
As I noted above, both sets A and B contain true statements. Of course, B also contains every false statement as well, since it contains everything that is not a logically true statement.
Definitions can be true statements. They are not logically true statements, however. Logical truths cannot be debated. It is possible to debate a definition. Therefore, a definition cannot be a logical truth.

I can define a pebble as anything capable of driving a car. This would be an example of a false definition. Furthermore, I cannot rely solely upon logic to arrive at the conclusion that this is a false definition. I must use common sense, which consists at least in part of observations of empirical evidence, none of which are things in set A, that is, none of which are logical truths.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

brokenhead wrote:It is possible to debate a definition.
Is this universal? For instance, if I define pebble as "pebble", is it debatable?
A mindful man needs few words.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:
brokenhead wrote:It is possible to debate a definition.
Is this universal? For instance, if I define pebble as "pebble", is it debatable?
Yes, but not necessarily so. Someone would have to have a reason to debate it. Definitions can be debated, but obviously such a debate would require at least some kind of minimal motivation, right?

It is apparently possible to debate A=A, as it seems to be occurring in this very thread. But for logical discourse to proceed, as David and Kevin have pointed out, we must agree to the definition AdefA. Thus we can agree that A=A is a true statement, and can be part of subsequent logically true statements. The statement A=A itself does not belong to set A. It must, therefore, belong to set B.
clyde
Posts: 680
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:04 pm

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by clyde »

Kevin Solway wrote:Appearance (where its boundaries are) is one of the main causes of a thing.
Isn’t it more accurate to say that the appearance of a thing is the appearance of a thing (You know, A=A.) and that one can say that the appearance of a thing exists.
A thing is actually an appearance.
Kevin;

If, as you write, an appearance is a cause of a thing and a thing is an appearance, then it follows that:

An appearance is a cause of an appearance; i.e. A is a cause of A!

Really?

clyde


p.s: Boundaries are appearances too.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

brokenhead wrote:Definitions can be debated, but obviously such a debate would require at least some kind of minimal motivation, right?
Okay, what would motivate you to debate pebble being defined "pebble"?
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

clyde wrote:i.e. A is a cause of A!

Really?
Why would you doubt that A is a cause of A? It's the most obvious cause of all: without A, there is no A.
A mindful man needs few words.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:
brokenhead wrote:Definitions can be debated, but obviously such a debate would require at least some kind of minimal motivation, right?
Okay, what would motivate you to debate pebble being defined "pebble"?
Money. Lots and lots of money.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: When is a fish not a fish?

Post by David Quinn »

DHodges wrote:
Fujaro wrote:Furthermore I do think that I can point to a thing in reality without referring to rigorous A=A. I simply restrict myself to a limited set of properties to define that the thing is A. I can do that logically, and I can do that empirically. So I allow that I might discover empirically that this table in the ninth dimension that I yet can't investigate in no way is the table I thought it was. I would from it suggest another way of dealing with A=A. And I also allow that I might discover empirically that this table has ome proprties in the second spatial dimension I had overlooked up till then. I would allow my own fallible judgement.
What you are saying here doesn't deny A=A, it denies that A="A" - that is, a thing might not be what you think it is.
Exactly right.

Fujaro is not grasping the point at all, primarily because of his being trapped entirely within the scientific/materialistic mindset, which is what we are all taught these days. He is not an unintelligent fellow by any means, but it just shows the power of social conditioning and mental blocks to limit the mind's outlook. Hopefully, he can break out of it.

-
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

brokenhead wrote:
Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Okay, what would motivate you to debate pebble being defined "pebble"?
Money. Lots and lots of money.
Academic philosophy in a nutshell.
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by David Quinn »

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote: Surely you can't fail to understand that in order to construct any kind of proof or dispoof at all, identifiable evidence must be called upon. And surely you can't fail to understand that evidence which is identifiable necessarily conforms to the principle of A=A. If it didn't, we wouldn't be able to observe it, let alone identify it.

It is clear, then, that "refuting A=A" falls into the same category as a "square circle". It is a contradiction in terms.
I'm all in favour of evidence but against the claim that reality must abide a specific logic that is based on specific axioms. A square circle is right out illogic and I don't propose such a thing, but a circle as a two dimensional existential imprint of a three dimensional cilinder is not. For a truth to be the absolute truth it isn't enough to know the limits of a given statement. Remember how you and Dan suggested in the podcast with Victor that an absolute truth should be true in all possible worlds.

That a flatlander perceives a circle and not something else is a truth which is true in all possible worlds. Nowhere can this truth ever be falsified.

That he doesn't perceive the object to be a circle and a square at the same time is also a truth which is true in all possible worlds.

Somehow, you are going to have to find a way to step outside of your current thinking and discern this all-important point.

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote: A=A can be applied either inductively or deductively - and just as meaningfully in each case. Currently, you are only open to the possibilities of the former. That's understandable, this is how we have all been taught.
I take it this means you are not on the same track with Kevin who in word categorically turns down the use of inductive logic for rigorous proof. Please elaborate.

When applied inductively, tentative theories about the empirical world can be created. When applied deductively, absolute truths about reality, which includes the empirical world, can be uncovered. Both of these activities are meaningful.

Fujaro wrote:
David Quinn wrote: To illustrate, consider a pyramid in 3-D space being inserted perpendicularly into a 2-D plane where the flatlanders live (I trust you are familiar the flatlander analogy). From the flatlander's perspective, the pyramid presents as a square. That is all they know of the object. To them, it is a square and nothing else. And yet a being in 3-D space can see that it is a pyramid.

Now, how is the principle of A=A affected by all of this? It isn't affected at all. The flatlanders observe a square and can realize that they are not seeing a circle or some other shape. Likewise, the 3Ders observe a pyramid and can realize that they are not seeing a cylinder or some other object. A=A is in full operation here.

Is the object really a square or a pyramid? The question has no meaning because objects are always observed in context. Is the object both a square and a pyramid at the same time, thus violating A=A? No, it isn't. It is simply an object that presents as a pyramid in 3-D space and as a square in 2-D space. So again, A=A is not violated.

If the object truly violated A=A no one would be able to experience it. It wouldn't be able to exist in the first place.

Well, suppose that in this example there is no more to it than the three dimensions considered, then what in this excercise constitutes the whole and absolute truth?

Many absolute truths can be deduced from it. I've already articulated a couple of them - e.g. the object presents as a square in 2D space and as a pyramid in 3D space.

Is the true identity of the object the logical 2-D square, the logical 3-D pyramid or is part of that absolute truth that the square observed by the flatlanders is existentially connected to a 3-D pyramid? That last bit is essential to the absolute truth in your example. Both separate views can deny there is a connection between the views by saying they limit themselves to 3-D or 2-D reality, but then flatlanders say that square B adheres to B=B and 3-D beings say that pyramid A adheres to A=A. The flatlanders will fail to recognize the existential connection between square and pyramid (for instance the causal chain may be broken for flatlanders but existing in the 3D reality of pyramids). Because of this I'd say it is a pretty strong example of denying A=A as an absolute truth about reality.
The flatlander may never perceive a connection between the square and the pyramid, nor even become aware of the pyramid at all. It would depend on the level of indirect evidence for the pyramid available in their 2D space, on how thoroughly they performed their scientific investigations, on how skillful they were at inductive reasoning, and so on. But regardless of whether they become aware of the pyramid's existence or not, at no point is A=A ever violated.

Also observe that when you limit A=A to known dimensions you are exactly doing what I suggested earlier as an alternative guiding principle for identifying things in reality. You restrict its application to known territory.

Even if the flatlanders remain entirely ignorant of the 3D realm, such that it remains an entirely unknown territory for them, at no point is A=A ever violated. The same applies to our own ignorance of other realms and dimensions.

You're constantly pursing a phantom in these posts of yours and it is entire due to your own misunderstanding of what A=A is. That's the irony of this whole conversation: it is being generated by your own misidentification of A=A.

Your example has a strong analogy with the proposals made in M-brane theory where is suggested that the world we observe is a holographic impression of a higher dimensional reality (the holographic principle). In this model of reality our reality is existentially connected to this higher dimensional reality and the existential connection is very crucial indeed for explaining the very basis of laws of nature observed in our part of reality.
This might have relevance to our current scientific laws and theories, but it has no relevance to core absolute truths such as A=A.

-
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Ataraxia »

Having observed this particular debate 3 or 4 times now over the last 12 months i can see that the die is caste and Fugaro won't be able to lay a glove on Kevin and David ultimately.

I think the main reason is because, he like Victor (and I think Rosencrantz in that other forum) before him, take the wrong tack.

Trevor hinted earlier at the best approach I suspect, when he said something like "you haven't asked David what he means by Reality' "

It seems to me as long as David and Kevin say :"to exist" is defined as "presenting an appearance to an observer" then their is no way they can 'lose'

It requires an existential argument, probably of a Heidegger variety to land a blow.Unfortunately I'm not ably equiped to make it.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by brokenhead »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:
brokenhead wrote:
Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Okay, what would motivate you to debate pebble being defined "pebble"?
Money. Lots and lots of money.
Academic philosophy in a nutshell.
That would be "a comfortable amount of money and tenure."
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Kevin Solway »

clyde wrote:If, as you write, an appearance is a cause of a thing and a thing is an appearance, then it follows that:

An appearance is a cause of an appearance; i.e. A is a cause of A!
When I say that "appearance is a cause of a thing" I am implying that the causes of appearance, such as senses, mind, or whatever the causes of appearance might be, are actually causes of the thing in question. So this carries with it much more information than "A thing depends on (or causes) itself", even though the latter is not strictly wrong.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Matt Gregory »

I think people for the most part are stuck on the idea that absolute truth is about belief rather than logic. They reason that religions have used the concept of absolute truth to justify ridiculous beliefs and undermine individual thinking, therefore absolute truth is false. But that's not correct. That's like arguing that because everyone in history has gotten the answer to 2+2 wrong that there is no answer to 2+2. Just because nobody in history has identified absolute truth correctly doesn't mean that absolute truth doesn't exist.
Last edited by Matt Gregory on Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Kevin Solway »

brokenhead wrote:A definition cannot be a logical truth.
Definitions can't be "debated" in any meaningful sense. For example, if I use the word "God" to mean "the All", then that is a definition that I have made, and it is not open to debate.

A definition cannot be false in any way. It might be that you don't know what definitions another person has made (which leads to "undecidability"), but, if you are a rational person, you will know precisely what definitions you yourself have made.
I can define a pebble as anything capable of driving a car. This would be an example of a false definition.
It's not clear what you are saying here. You are saying one of the following:

1. Anything capable of driving a car, you are giving the label "pebble".

This is a perfectly valid definition. You may use the label "pebble" to refer to other things as well, such as a small rock, but it is common for words to have several different meanings.

or 2. Anything capable of driving a car is a small rock.

The latter is not a definition, but is an empirical claim, and it can be empirically tested. So the latter is not a false definition, as it's not a definition at all.
Furthermore, I cannot rely solely upon logic to arrive at the conclusion that this is a false definition.
You can rely solely on logic to tell you that it's not a definition at all.
Fujaro
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:34 am

Re: Can you ever be certain that you are reasoning correctly?

Post by Fujaro »

I will try to disentangle the arguments thusfar stated in this thread on the Law of Identity (LOI). In the analysis I stumbled on some contradictions I would like to resolve. It is possible these contradictions have arisen from the fact that different debaters in this thread have slightly different interpretations of LOI and that they do not constitute contradictions of the same debater. My purpose is to dissolve these differences and I would like to invite everyone who it concerns to help me out.

A = A, also known as the Law of Identity (LOI) is to be understood as a propositional statement of formal logic stating that a thing is identical to itself. The law is an abstraction in the conscious mind in the sense that the mind forms a propositional sentence to thereby assess it. Not accepting the logical A=A statement amounts to not accepting formal logic itself for it is (with the tenets of the Law of Contradiction and the Law of the Excluded Middle) about the basic tenets of logic itself. It is unclear how to define a logic without LOI. This would surmount to illogic. So as a logical propositional statement it cannot be denied without denying the value of logic itself. I don't deny it and so far, I expect no disagreement with the stances of David and Kevin.

At least Kevin seems to make an additional metaphysical claim when Kevin denies the division between reality and one's own consciousness. But as I identified that stance as a form of solipsism David rejected it decisively. Solipsism is a special form of a metaphysical claim, that of idealism, the idea that there is only one sort of substance: thought. It might be that David and Kevin adhere to other forms of Idealism instead of solipsism (please do elaborate on this). Idealism as a metaphysical stance is contrasted by objectivism which holds that consciousness is not possible without the prior existence of something, external to consciousness, for consciousness to be conscious of: "To be aware is to be aware of something.". This also is a metaphysical claim. It is a stance I as a naturalist adhere to. IMO there is no deductive logic that conclusively can dissolve between some Idealist views and the Objectivist view, but there are phenomena that objectivism can explain but that idealism can not explain.

In objectivism there is a different interpretation of LOI than in idealism, for in objectivism thought can be about someting other than thought itself. Ataraxia is right that the definition of reality therefore is relevant for this discussion. I suspect that Kevin and David define reality as all consciousness perceived, but I'd like to have their affirmation or rejection of that.

The objectivst worldview supposes that some thought, most conclusively thought that seems to stem from our senses, has its origin in a reality that is not entirely conscious thought. This is a very common view indeed and many philosophers have been proponents of it. In this worldview there is a dichotomy between logical validation of LOI and the validation in that part of reality that is not thought. Here a mapping from the physical thing to the logical is needed to interpret LOI in the physical world. Something like this:

(A) <the real object> <--(pointer 1)--- logical subject A is logical predicate A --(pointer 2)--> <the real object>

While in the idealist view and in the realm of objectivism that concerns thought itself it would be:

(B) <thought of A> <--(pointer 1)--- Logical subject A is logical predicate A --(pointer 2)--> <thought of A>

In (B) the tought of A is not discernible from what is labeled with a logical A and therefore LOI always is complete. There are no hidden properties of A. In (A) the problem of non-conclusive indiscernability arises. This is because identity in the physical realm becomes independent from identity in the realm of thought. To make a complete mapping for the real object all properties of A have to be known with infinite precision. Leibniz described this problem and formulated Leibniz Law (LL) for the identity of indiscernibles. LL is a way of bringing A=A to the realm of empirical physics. At first unaware of this I quite accidentally rephrased it in my alternative proposition for the problem of identity.

A contradiction I perceive in the statements from Kevin and David but cannot resolve is that is claimed by them that LOI holds in all possible worlds. I would counter that by suggesting that the objectivist view imo constitutes a possible world in which the mapping from logical to the physical becomes relevant. So LOI in a logical sense is true in this world but does not hold conclusively for real objects because a fundamental indiscernability is present. In this way LOI can be denied in the possible world of objectivist reality.

So it seems that underlying all the fuzz is the difference in the metaphysical viewpoints adhered to by the debaters. These differences in stances are best shown I think in the flatlander example David gave. For me as a naturalist the 3-D pyramid passing through the flatlanders plane comes closest to what I would call the truth about reality, while David is forced to a dichotomy between flatland and 3-D. The disconnection between the flatlanders view and the 3-D view I assess as a great shortcoming in the idealist view. It shows that the specific idealist stance David adheres to inhibits out of the box thinking. While the non-absolutistic stance I propose allows for it and for incremental adjustment of the description of reality, the logic and metaphysical claim David pursues seems to become an obstacle in the quest for truth.

Of course all this can be a completely faulty assessment on my part. I allow for that, for I do not claim absolute truth. But do not say I haven't given a fair and honest try to understanding the rather obscure formulated claims I have encountered in this thread.
Last edited by Fujaro on Wed Jul 23, 2008 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Locked