Fujaro wrote:Kevin Solway wrote:.It doesn't matter that A=A cannot be proven, because it is self-evident.
Self-evident means nothing more than that it is considered clear from reality straight away. As if we have direct access to absolute truth in this case.
That's right. With logic we indeed have access to absolute truth.
As a philosopher you are aware that there are serious questions as to whether self-evident is logically valid at all.
These are non-questions. It doesn't mean anything to ask whether logic is logically valid.
Kevin Solway wrote:Fujaro wrote:The only reason to accept it is the congruence with reality as you perceive it.
Absolutely not.
Then what is your reason Kevin?
Logic, as suggested by its symbol "A=A", is the act of identification. If anything at all is identified then it must be accepted that there is logic. Since I personally identify things, which is to say that I observer that a thing is what it is and not other than what it is, it follows that I have no choice but to "accept" logic. I do not really accept it, but it is forced upon me.
Kevin Solway wrote:Logic is automatically built-in to the conscious mind. It is not something that can be accepted or rejected.
I assume that you can show me how you have logically arrived at this conclusion?
The reason you can't choose whether to accept logic is because if you are conscious then you are already using logic and are thoroughly committed to it.
I will rephrase it for you to 'experiences' [rather than empirical evidence]: You are using experiences not logic to accept A=A.
See above. If anything at all is experienced, and identification is taking place, then there is already logic, so there is no question of "accepting" it.
Kevin Solway wrote:"Empirical evidence" only exists because logic is already in operation.
You are confusing logic and reason again. Reason is a mix of inductive and deductive skills, it's not purely deductive logic.
Reason
uses logic. Logic does not use reason. Logic is the atomic element.
You accept A=A not only as a logical truth, but on top of that as a truth of all existence.
It could be called the truth of all existence in the sense that all things which exist do so through identification, which is what logic is.
All truths are dependent on A=A, on logic, but logic is not the whole of Reality. It is only a tool.
Kevin Solway wrote:"The present" is a snapshot, yet the present is caused by the past.
So while there is no interaction between the present and the past (since the past has already gone) the present is caused by the past.
You only have a set of frozen snapshots to go on. Can you be logically certain that snapshot 23456 'causes' snapshot 23457?
In the case that snapshop 23457 is "state of the Universe now" and snapshot 23456 is "the state of the Universe a moment ago", then I can be certain that the earlier snapshot is the cause of the later snapshot - since there is nothing else that could possibly have caused it.
Or is it also logically possible that snapshot 25000 caused 23457?
If one snapshot is a prior state of the Universe, then it is definitely a cause if the other.
And how can you tell logically?
Because the past is the cause of the present - by definition.
In every snapshot everything is frozen and all is new, has new identity. There's no event happening to any electron, because all the electrons in adjacent snapshots are different, remember?
A thing is called an "event" when it is conceived as happening in time. The current state of the Universe is an "event", and this particular event is caused by the past state of the Universe.
Kevin Solway wrote:The practitioner of pure logic can tell us that the road will definitely lead somewhere - even if it is round in a circle - and he can tell us that through pure deduction.
Only when inductive reasoning is applied as I have shown.
No inductive reasoning is necessary, since it is inherent in the definition of a road that it leads somewhere.
Fujaro wrote:Forget time in snapshot logic.
A "snapshot" only means something in relation to time, since it happens in an instant of time.
Your sense of time may delude you.
Your "sense" of time can't delude you, but only your interpretation of your sense of time.
What appears to be the passage of 5 minutes is indeed what appears to be the passage of 5 minutes, regardless of what any clocks might say. No delusion is taking place in such a case, so long as the person experiencing the passage of what appears to be 5 minutes doesn't make any unnecessary assumptions.
You must rely on deductive logic only and then there is only 'now' as you suggested yourself. Inferring a timeflow from the comparison of adjacent snapshots is an inductive reasoning.
Firstly, we don't "infer a timeflow". Rather,
we experience time, which is a completely different thing.
There is an experience of the "now" and an experience of something other than now, which we call "the past", which we define as being prior to the present. The present must, logically be caused by the past, since there's nothing else that could cause the present.
Please substantiate your claim that a thing only exists when observed.
This is part of the definition of what "exists" means. A thing is said to "exist" when it is observed or imagined.
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.
I'm curious to know in what way this helps the 'I' to escape from the snapshot logic.
The "I", as a logical entity, does not occur in time, and therefore it is not a snapshot.
The observation of 'I' in the first part of the sentence is still in another snapshot than the observation of 'I' in the last part.
It is an observation of the same "I", at different times, just as the number "1" is always the same "1", no matter when you observe it.
Kevin Solway wrote:A=A is not a logical concept, but is logic itself. So its value is the value of logic itself.
Let me get this clear. Is A=A a logical statement or is it more than this statement alone? And if such is the case, what other logical statements or methods should we understand it to be?
"A=A" is a symbol which means "Logic". Logic is the recognition that a thing is what it is, and not other than what it is. All purely deductive thinking can be summarized by the expression "A=A".
the step of adopting A=A as true is non-logical.
Logic cannot be "adopted", since whenever something is adopted, logic is already in existence. Logic either exists or it doesn't.
A simple sentence like "the boy is outside" is an example of a non-trivial sentence. With A=A alone these sentences cannot be formed.
Logic never says "the boy is outside", but rather "That which appears to be a boy, appears to be outside" (which may be shortened for convenience).
Science too, when it is logical (which happens rarely), only says "That which appears to be a boy, appears to be outside".
Kevin Solway wrote:You cannot objectively know what is taking place.
I objectively know that I am having experiences.
That would have to mean that you could give a full and detailed account of how this 'device' is operating (from neuron firing to conclusion drawing).
It doesn't follow that just because I know some things objectively that I can obectively know all the infinite detailed interactions of the Universe.
A=A can have no complete mapping in reality for it is impossible to know if all properties are known about a thing existing in reality.
Let's take the category of all unknown things as an example. This category perfectly describes that which it is intended to describe.
Things like "left" and "right" also perfectly describe that which they are supposed to (ie, the left and right sides of an observed thing).