Is Logic True?

[123456789]

Hello actualizers:

Logic is extremely useful in daily life, science, and mathematics. I was wondering, however, whether logic is imaginary or is the truth?

If it is imaginary then: 

1. How do you know?
2. Why are we able to predict the future using it? (Scientifc models)

 

[Leo Gura]

What is it you mean by "logic"? That's a super-loaded term.

Contemplate: What is logic?

It certainly isn't true in any absolute sense.

[tsuki]

Logic is a mental tool that helps you determine truth of statements depending on assumptions you make.
Asking whether it is true or not in itself is meaningless. 

[Leo Gura]

You have to be very careful to distinguish formal logic from the word "logic" as it is commonly used in mainstream culture.

Certainly formal logic is not what you use to run your life. Not anywhere close it.

And even in the case of formal logic, did you know that there are an infinite number of different formal logical systems with varying truths? So which one are you gonna say is the truest one? How will you decide? By using some meta-logic? But then there are an infinite number of meta-logical systems with varying truths. So you'll need a meta-meta-logic, and so on to infinity.

As Kurt Godel proved, no logical system which is complete is consistent. And no logical system which is consistent is complete. This is because Truth is infinite and cannot be captured in a finite set of symbols.

Most people who tout themselves as being "logical" have no clue what logic really is and its limits. In everyday life the ego co-opts logic to commit devilry. Even the craziest and most deluded people think they are being "logical". So how can you trust logic then? You could think you are being perfectly logical whilst you are totally deluded. So logic is no guarantor of truth.

[123456789]

@Leo Gura How come we are able to predict the future using scientific models (which are based on formal logic)?

Edited April 26, 2019 by 123456789
grammatical mistake

[Vingger]

Logics are like lost waves

[123456789]

@Vingger Can you explain?

[Leo Gura]

32 minutes ago, 123456789 said:

@Leo Gura How come we are able to predict the future using scientific models (which are based on formal logic)?

Firstly, scientific models are NOT based on formal logic. Again, "formal logic" is a loaded word. There are an infinite number of different formal logics. So which one are you gonna base your scientific model on? They all contradict each other. You must do empirical research to determine whether your logic squares with reality. Often times it won't!

In quantum mechanics particles do not follow Aristotelian binary logic. So physics has long ago debunked the naive notion that reality follows binary logic.

The question of What is science? and How come science works? is a very tricky one. It takes decades of study and contemplation to understand it.

In short, scientific models contain very partial and limited relative truths. They are true only under very very narrow circumstances and contexts. Just because some aspects of reality are predictable does not mean that reality is logical. In fact it tends to work the other way around: Whatever humans call "logical" is however reality happens to behave in contexts which are relevant to humans. For example, if chairs had a habit of turning spontaneously into cats whenever you sat on them, your mind would grow accustomed to that behavior and call it "logical".

In practice, what you call "logical" is just whatever reality happens to do around you. If everyone you knew walked around naked on the street, you'd eventually start calling that logical. Because in fact it is impossible to distinguish between logical and illogical things. That is a matter of relative perspective. What's logical to me is not logical to you, and vice versa. Or to put it another way, YOU are the sole arbiter of what counts as logical. Whatever you insist is logical, becomes logical (for you). Whatever you insist is illogical becomes illogical (for you). Logic has no normative power. So if someone wants to be "illogical", they are free to do so and no amount of reasoning, argumentation, or evidence will convince them otherwise. Because they are only "illogical" relative to your judgment of them. They are not illogical in any absolute sense.

There actually exists no standard to determine what counts as logical. It must be this way because reality is nondual and empty/groundless. Anyone who tries to ground reality in logic will fail. This was rigorously demonstrated back in the early 20th century. Logical positivism and the attempt to formalize reality with a finite system of symbols failed spectacularly. As it should have. Reality is not quantifiable or formalizable.

[123456789]

Quote

In short, scientific models contain very partial and limited relative truths. They are true only under very very narrow circumstances.

 @Leo Gura Could you give me some examples (from "real life") that I can see for myself? And what about mathematics?

Also, where should I begin if I want to understand why science works and what it is?

Edited April 26, 2019 by 123456789
add a sentence

[Girzo]

@123456789 All of physics. Take Newton laws for example. They work only in a certain scale.

 

[Leo Gura]

@123456789 Like I said this requires decades of contemplation work. Contemplate your own examples.

For example: Einstein's theory of General Relativity is only true at macro levels. It does not work at the micro levels of quantum mechanics. But even if it did, that still wouldn't make a difference because General Relativity is not true in your dreams or in a video game.

And in the end, it's still only an approximation at best of only certain kinds of physical phenomena. There are a trillion things which General Relativity does not account for.

Not to even mention that General Relativity is not possible at all outside the context of the human mind. General Relativity literally does not exist for a donkey. Because General Relativity is a symbolic human invention and projection onto reality. The remarkable thing is that it has any predictive power at all (but again, only relative to human life and human consciousness).

[Forestluv]

@123456789 Are you familiar with quantum mechanics -  dual particle + wavelength properties and superposition? There is stuff being revealed scientifically that is outside the traditional scientific paradigm of materialism and linear logic.

[123456789]

@Shiva In the case of scientific models we have very clearly defined variables. 

[Leo Gura]

18 minutes ago, 123456789 said:

@Shiva In the case of scientific models we have very clearly defined variables. 

Actually no scientific variable is every clearly defined.

Science has no definition for matter, gravity, energy, time, space, or any other fundamental property of nature. Because reality is groundless and nondual it is impossible to define. Any definition is partial, circular, and ultimately groundless.

Check for yourself. What is energy exactly? What is matter? What is time? If you investigate this you'll discover that no scientist actually knows. You'll just be chasing your own tail. All scientific definitions must be circular. Energy is defined in terms of the unknowns of time, space, and matter. Matter is defined in terms of the unknowns of energy, time, and space. Time is defined in terms of the unknowns of matter, energy, and space. Space is defined in terms of the unknowns of time, energy, and matter. In this way, nothing is truly ever known but an illusion of knowing is created like a house of cards.

See my videos on:

• Quantum Mechanics Debunks Materialism
• The Metaphysical Implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
• Jacques Derrida, Deconstruction, Post-Modernism & Nonduality
• Reality Is A Strange Loop

That should get you started in the right direction.

[123456789]

@Leo Gura Hello leo, thanks once again for the reply. Correct me if I am wrong, but SI units seem pretty well defined and non-circular to me, check out the formal definitions.

[Leo Gura]

@123456789 Take a closer look. They are all circular.

You must break through the illusion of knowledge. No knowledge is actually possible.

You cannot take science at face value in this work. You MUST contemplate for yourself.

Even more fundamentally, all human language is circular. And science is a human language. You cannot do science, math, or logic without language.

So really what you should start contemplating is, What the fuck is language? How is language possible AT ALL?

[Truth Addict]

Any kind of knowledge is basically an illusion done in some way to help you stay alive.

You can definitely change how you use logic or science or anything to benefit your survival needs more or less.

[Nahm]

@123456789 It all boils down to light (and theoretically the speed of light) and no one can know what it is because we do too. The punchline is that it’s actually your own self imposed limitation. 

[tsuki]

11 hours ago, 123456789 said:

Why are we able to predict the future using it? (Scientifc models)

Can we, really? Have you tried to predict something yourself?
Take a ball, weigh it and calculate the time it will take it to fall to the ground from a certain distance.

Run the experiment and see if it fits your predictions.

As you increase the precision of your experiments, you will quickly learn that you need probability theory and statistics to talk about your results.
One of interpretations of statistics is that it is a mathematical method of transforming beliefs. In this sense, you are not predicting future, but re-arranging your mental furniture in such a way that the present moment does not surprise you.

Edited April 27, 2019 by tsuki

[Shadowraix]

@tsuki I'd call it more like using concepts so that you can imagine an experience. You are predicting. As in a claim of an experience that should occur. This hinges on consistency.