GENIUS FORUMS

1. Logic is a biological development, and, thinking in terms of the rarity of biological organisms, it comprises a very small part of the universe.

2. We can never know what the total extent of the Universe is because we don't encompass the whole universe, so all we can really know is our own logic. All of the rest of our knowledge is partial and incomplete.

3. Logic can't be universal without some type of divine magic or something otherwise inexplicable because even if we come to a completely consistent logical conclusion, we are still only operating within the realm of our own logic, which is only a subset of the Universe per #1. We don't know if there's something in the universe that can't be accounted for or understood with our logic.

4. A universal enlightenment isn't possible, only (maybe) an enlightenment about our own logic.

Doesn't that make sense?

Doesn't that make sense?

Not really, since it is making the universal statement that logic is not universal.

For example, "We don't encompass the whole universe".

Is that statement universally true? If we are causally connected to the whole universe, then we do in fact encompass the whole universe.

We don't know if there's something in the universe that can't be accounted for or understood with our logic.

The only way a thing can't be dealt with by our logic is if it didn't obey the law of identity. That is, it never became a "thing" of any kind. In other words, there can't be any "thing" that can't be dealt with by logic, since logic and identity go hand in hand.

If we are causally connected to the whole universe, then we do in fact encompass the whole universe.

But we only encompass the whole universe in a limited way. We don't encompass it in every possible way. The connection between a thing and our logic has to follow a particular protocol in order for us to become conscious of it.

Logic is causally connected first to the senses. So if something can't enter the senses, then how can we be sure that it can enter our logic? If we can't be sure that anything in the universe can enter our logic, how can we be sure that logic is truly universal?

Matt Gregory wrote:

If we are causally connected to the whole universe, then we do in fact encompass the whole universe.

But we only encompass the whole universe in a limited way. We don't encompass it in every possible way.

If we encompass/extend in a causal way, then that is fairly far reaching, and not particularly limiting.

The connection between a thing and our logic has to follow a particular protocol in order for us to become conscious of it.

Yes. For example, we can turn a blind eye to a lot of things that we don't want to deal with. Even though those things might be right in front of our face, they don't exist for us.

The "protocol" is in fact cause and effect. We will see things if we are caused to see them, and won't see them if we aren't.

If there is a thing, then we are already conscious of it, and the connection has been made, and logic is already in action.

Logic is causally connected first to the senses. So if something can't enter the senses, then how can we be sure that it can enter our logic? If we can't be sure that anything in the universe can enter our logic, how can we be sure that logic is truly universal?

Let's say we are dead. In that case nothng is entering our senses, and there are no things, and no logic arises. So the question as to whether logic is universal never arises, since there is no such thing.

But in the case of a living, conscious person, there is logic, and the logic itself dictates universality. For example, the person might think "There is me, and whatever is not me, and the two are not identical, and that is a universal, absolute truth."

The moment there is consciousness there is logic, and the moment there is logic there is universality - which is only a form of identity.

If we can't be sure that anything in the universe can enter our logic, how can we be sure that logic is truly universal?

If we have logic, then something is entering or causing our logic, so we can be sure that something "enters" our logic.

Oh, I didn't mean that type of "anything". I meant the other kind. Any something or whatever. Heh, I can't explain it.

Matt Gregory wrote:Oh, I didn't mean that type of "anything". I meant the other kind. Any something or whatever. Heh, I can't explain it.

Ok, so you mean "some particular thing"?

Let's say that logic (or consciousness) is caused by the rest of the Universe. Since any particular thing is necessarily a part of the rest of the Universe, then it is causing logic, and therefore could be considered to be "entering" it.

I don't know if that answers your question.

Let's say we are dead. In that case nothng is entering our senses, and there are no things, and no logic arises. So the question as to whether logic is universal never arises, since there is no such thing.

But in the case of a living, conscious person, there is logic, and the logic itself dictates universality. For example, the person might think "There is me, and whatever is not me, and the two are not identical, and that is a universal, absolute truth."

The moment there is consciousness there is logic, and the moment there is logic there is universality - which is only a form of identity.

So, you're basically saying that logic is universal because there is no alternative. Right?

Matt Gregory wrote:So, you're basically saying that logic is universal because there is no alternative. Right?

Well, if there's consciousness there's logic, and once there's logic there's nothing it can't reach.

Why? If there were an alien species with much more powerful brains than us, then they would be able to conceive and identify things that we just aren't capable of. Their brains would be able to process more complex boundaries than us, so we wouldn't be able to conceive of things in quite the same way as them. It could go the other way, too. Maybe they can conceive of things that are much simpler than we can.

Things like this, conceivable by aliens but not by us, would fall outside of our own logic.

Matt Gregory wrote:Things like this, conceivable by aliens but not by us, would fall outside of our own logic.

Our logic might not be able to deal with the details, since we don't know them, but we can still deal with the general category which contains the thing we don't know.

For example, we don't know the exact contents of the moon, and it may contain some things we are not aware of, but our logic can still deal with "the moon". In this way, we are also dealing with its contents, whatever they might be.

What is the purpose of the concept of "the Infinite" (not finite), then? What is it supposed to achieve?

It seems you have very specific ideas about what is not finite about it, but I don't understand what they are. It seems to me that it applies to space and time, but not a realm, like, say, knowledge. In the moment someone gives you a surprise birthday present, all wrapped in colored paper, you can't know what's inside it. That's what I would consider a limit.

It seems to me that the infinite scope of logic is more of a possibility than an actuality, because it's still bound by cause and effect. It doesn't illuminate the entire universe at all times, but only what it's caused to illuminate at the moment. See what I'm saying?

Matt Gregory wrote:It seems to me that the infinite scope of logic is more of a possibility than an actuality, because it's still bound by cause and effect. It doesn't illuminate the entire universe at all times, but only what it's caused to illuminate at the moment. See what I'm saying?

The Universe can be split up into an infinite number of parts. Logic cannot deal with those infinite number of parts other than in broad categories.

Logic only deals with things, but things are only parts of the Universe, so it is limited in that way - even though the parts it deals with might comprise the entire Universe (eg, "self" and "not self").