ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:57 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Logic as religion.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:10 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
It occured to me a couple of days ago that there isn't any objective trancendant reason for logic to be 'better' than the alterntative (no logic).

Logic is the way of thought I use, but why would I think that it is the best? I can't give logical arguments on the subject since that would be using a tool on himself (I'm sure there's a name for this), so I'm stuck with the most fundamental question unanswered: why do I need logic?

After getting myself sick for thinking on it too much I decided that this situation resembles religion. It has whole libraries of scriptures, it has followers and it has its 'saints' like Okham and Mill. It even has Murphy as the satan...

So to conclude: I've been bed-ridden sick for a week now so my brain isn't at his usual omniscient capabilitis, but I still hope you understood what I tried to say.

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Logic as religion.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 1:27 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Gazing Rabbit wrote:
I have logically concluded that you can't conclude anything with logic.


Brilliant.

(Heh, just kidding. Actually, it's perfectly acceptable for a certain rule-system (such as logic) to determine its own limitations via its own terms. Otherwise how could we have stuff like Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem? I'd actually like someone else (maybe Tamayo) to explain to me more thoroughly the logistics of a system describing itself, since I'm having an ongoing argument with MiB about this via AIM and he still maintains that any attempt to delimit the boundaries of logic via logic is inconsistent since "you can't disprove logic with logic".)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 1:51 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
So I must be illogical to disprove logic?

This toast is jelly!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 2:28 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
krylex wrote:
So I must be illogical to disprove logic?

This toast is jelly!


I disagree. Hamburgers are a figure of speech, therefore monkeys must wear boots.

Okay, that's enough thread-derailing for today. Sorry about that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 2:57 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 86
Location: Canton, Oh, Usa
What about the Heart of Gold?(btw: HHGTTG) Dosnt that run a illogical logic?

And isnt Logic is how we view situations.

So two people can view the same object, and get two ideas on how its happening, useing there own set of logic, thus two logical observations of the same instance could be wrong to how someone see's it a few days later!

And another layer of confusion. Time distours logic! So how do we know if the current set of logic is even correct to what we see a few days or even years from now?

And as for Logic describing it self... Logic changes day to day, and acceptence to the masses for each logic changes, so there are no boundries of the logic that is never consistan


eh, did i lose you?

_________________
By my hand and seal, Talauna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 3:30 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 869
Good afternoon, gentlemen and ladies. Welcome to Phil 201: Formal Logic. I am your instructor, Dr -------. I am afraid I am somewhat unqualified to be a philosopher as I actually did my grad work in theoretical computing, so I hope you will forgive me if I trip over my tongue once or twice.

When you use the word "logic" you may be thinking of a some kind of pattern of thought. For example, you might say "deductive logic" to describe the actions of a detective like Sherlocke Holmes, or "inductive logic" to describe the experimentation of a scientist like Charles Darwin. Formal logic isn't either of those things. Formal logic is an application of a certain kind of language.

Now, as I use it (and I use it like a computer scientist does, sadly) the word "language" means "set of strings over some alphabet", and an "alphabet" is a "set of distinct characters whose size is finite but at least two". The language we will use in this course is called "the predicate calculus", and it really only came into its own in the late nineteenth and early-to-middle twentieth centuries. Before that time, the languages people used for logic were not as fully developed, as we shall see when we get to the idea of Goedel numbers.

What really distinguishes the predicate calculus from other languages used for logic (and yes, that includes natural languages like English or Greek) is that it is both unambiguous in its semantics and capable of being used to describe how to use itself. Now, many of you are English majors, and you are in this course because you have to take a Phil option; you should know well that English grammars and dictionaries are usually written in English. English, thus, is a tool sufficient for describing how to use the English language. Unfortunately, as those grammars and dictionaries go to show, English is a very flexible and ambiguous tool.

By contrast, consider the language L, which is the set of all strings all of whose characters are drawn from the characters "A", "E", "I", "O", "U", and the space character. This particular language is thoroughly described, but as the rules for constructing strings over that language are too easy to satisfy, the language L cannot be used to describe itself.

... and she drones on, accompanied by the gentle snoring of her students, until one particularly intelligent student stands up and asks ...

IcyMonkey wrote:
I'd actually like someone else to explain to me more thoroughly the logistics of a system describing itself, since I'm having an ongoing argument with MiB about this via AIM and he still maintains that any attempt to delimit the boundaries of logic via logic is inconsistent since "you can't disprove logic with logic".


Well, I did mention Goedel-numbering of statements in the calculus. I don't want to talk too much about that so early, but what it is in essence is translating statements in a logical language, like the propositional calculus, into a mathematical language in order to prove mathematical statements about the original logical statements and about logical statements in general.

The whole concept of "disproving logic", however, is not within the scope of the course. We will show that logic, or rather the propositional calculus, is consistent -- but that doesn't mean it is "provable" or "disprovable". By requiring the use of the propositional calculus to express logical statements, we will show that we can come to certain valid conclusions mechanically. That is all.

Another student stands up and asks an interesting question:

Talauna wrote:
Time distours logic! So how do we know if the current set of logic is even correct to what we see a few days or even years from now?


Time has no effect at all on logic, as we are using it here. Formal logic is a game with symbols -- not a method for describing what we see in the world. However, if you are interested, there are extensions to the predicate calculus that deal with dynamic states; to learn about those, you should take Phil 301, Dynamic Formal Logic. You're lucky -- I don't teach that course. Professor ------- is its instructor, and he's really smart.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:44 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
*Pokes Talauna* Whassis, a new play-mate? Welcome back.

Anyway, I think I was misunderstood in the purpose of the thread. I didn't asked if logic could call bullshit on itself. What I wanted to say was: 'we use logic the same way we use religion, and it can be cherished as one'

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 7:43 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 2:44 pm
Posts: 1821
Location: Home! Wheeeeee!
Gazing Rabbit wrote:
*Pokes Talauna* Whassis, a new play-mate? Welcome back.

Anyway, I think I was misunderstood in the purpose of the thread. I didn't asked if logic could call bullshit on itself. What I wanted to say was: 'we use logic the same way we use religion, and it can be cherished as one'
I disagree. We use logic to describe and understand the known and knowable universe, while we use religion to decribe and understand the unknown and unknowable universe.

The difference being that logic, when applied correctly (that is to say, in a consistent manner) to any given set of facts, will always return the same results. Religion, on the other hand, cannot be applied to facts at all, it is only useful for filling in the spaces between facts.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:52 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 86
Location: Canton, Oh, Usa
So if we prove what is known with logic

and we prove what is unknown with Religon

then why do people try to prove religon with logic?

or is that just the human need to know the unkown, to establish the boundrys of the unknown even if we do not know why the unknown is there?

I know there are things that we will never know, and things we should never know, but as humans are, and with free will, we have the option of learning everything, even if at the end it will destory us...

So if we apply logic to Religon and learn the unknown with logic, then we will all die... or religon will be abloished and we will base everything on logic...


oh ya, thanks for the welcome back

_________________
By my hand and seal, Talauna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:40 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:25 pm
Posts: 294
Is it just me or is Talauna not making any sense? *shrugs*

Anyway, logic is merely a tool. A mechanism. A "game" as Tamayo colorfully described it. It is not a belief.

You need some sort of rigid belief for it to be a religion. And some tenets of morality, a code of behavior and perhaps some rituals that members must adhere to. It must a have an ultimate goal like spiritual enlightenment, heaven/hell, nirvana, immortality, transcendence, commune with space aliens, or what have you (stepping into the irrational here, isn't that a no-no?). Religions also usually claim that they have life, the universe, and everything already figured out--the answers for everything.

However, we can certainly try to create a religion with logic as the foundation (uhrm wha?). Let's give it a fruity label like Le Logique.

Le Logique at a glance:
<ul>
<li>Logic is the only method for acquiring the truth. Everything else is crap.

<li>Ockham is infallible. Praise Ockham. Pay heed to His comrade Murphy. Murphy's a bitch, but also infallable.

<li>Our goal is pure, unbridled omniscience... no, really.

<li>Members must be baptised by having the date of their baptism tattooed on their body... in binary. It's their choice where. Minimum age for new members is 13.

<li>Treat others the way you want to be treated: Logically. The cliche works. Shut up.

<li>Members congregate every other Teusday. Monetary donations are logical and appreciated to help in the cost of maintaining our churches/universities.

<li>Don't be fooled by outsiders claiming to be rational and logical. If they are trully logical they should join us.

<li>Emotions usually lead to illogical behavior. Calm the fuck down.

<li>"Live long and prosper.", The great Professor Spock.
</ul>



Alright. Sounds silly to me. Of course I intentionally made it silly. But if ever somebody starts Le Logique, I want royalties.

_________________
SERENITY NOW!

DNI'dby Gazing Rabbit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:46 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
Hate wrote:
Alright. Sounds silly to me. Of course I intentionally made it silly. But if ever somebody starts Le Logique, I want royalties.

It was done near the end of the Franch revolution.

Hate wrote:
You need some sort of rigid belief for it to be a religion. And some tenets of morality, a code of behavior and perhaps some rituals that members must adhere to. It must a have an ultimate goal like spiritual enlightenment, heaven/hell, nirvana, immortality, transcendence, commune with space aliens, or what have you (stepping into the irrational here, isn't that a no-no?). Religions also usually claim that they have life, the universe, and everything already figured out--the answers for everything

Rigid belief that logic is *the* way of life, check.
tenets of morality and code of behavior: we have saveral options, I'll go with utilitarianism.
ultimate goal: all humanity follows the rules of teh game theory.

what, not good enough?

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:29 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:25 pm
Posts: 294
Gazing Rabbit wrote:
Hate wrote:
Alright. Sounds silly to me. Of course I intentionally made it silly. But if ever somebody starts Le Logique, I want royalties.

It was done near the end of the Franch revolution.


Well shit. I just wanted a title that sounds gay. Leave it to the French to be first in everything gay.

_________________
SERENITY NOW!

DNI'dby Gazing Rabbit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:44 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Hate wrote:
lol teh french sux


lol rite?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:54 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
Anybody wanna derail the thread to Franch-bashing?

How many Franchman does it take to defend Paris? We don't know, it had never been tried before.

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:05 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 5983
Location: Around about there.
Gazing Rabbit wrote:
Anybody wanna derail the thread to Franch-bashing?

How many Franchman does it take to defend Paris? We don't know, it had never been tried before.

Au contraire mon frere.
The French defended Paris in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, they both defended and attacked Paris in the Paris Commune rising of 1871 (yay civil wars) and the Paris garrison, the Battle of the Marne and the failure of the German Schlieffen plan at the start of World War One.

You need a more historically accurate joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:00 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
Vass wrote:
Gazing Rabbit wrote:
Anybody wanna derail the thread to Franch-bashing?

How many Franchman does it take to defend Paris? We don't know, it had never been tried before.

Au contraire mon frere.
The French defended Paris in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, they both defended and attacked Paris in the Paris Commune rising of 1871 (yay civil wars) and the Paris garrison, the Battle of the Marne and the failure of the German Schlieffen plan at the start of World War One.

You need a more historically accurate joke.

Why? Why should my joke be historically correct?

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:51 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:25 pm
Posts: 294
Yeah, since when did jokes have to be realistic?

Which is the better joke?

This one:

Q: How many Frenchman does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Usually two at the most. One to hold the ladder if needed and another to actually replace the bulb.


Or this:

Q: How many Frenchman does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Five.
One to sit on his butt and watch, accomplishing precisely dick.
One to turn tail and run.
One to roll over.
One to surrender and rat out other unoccupied light sockets.
And one to get on the phone and cry to the U.S. to save them.

_________________
SERENITY NOW!

DNI'dby Gazing Rabbit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:23 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 5983
Location: Around about there.
Gazing Rabbit wrote:
Why? Why should my joke be historically correct?

Hate wrote:
Yeah, since when did jokes have to be realistic?

Because I'll come along and say that it's a lame and unfunny joke and point out why. Just like both the "jokes" Hate suggested.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:35 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
Vass wrote:
Gazing Rabbit wrote:
Why? Why should my joke be historically correct?

Hate wrote:
Yeah, since when did jokes have to be realistic?

Because I'll come along and say that it's a lame and unfunny joke and point out why. Just like both the "jokes" Hate suggested.

So to conclude, your sense of humor is even worse than mine...

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:53 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 1654
Location: UrAnus
Logic is not a religion as it is an application of science and is therefore subject to testing with reproducible results; this of course says nothing about it being a sure thing, just increasingly likely with increasing number of trials.

Religion is based around belief, usually around one time miracles that cannot be reproduced.

If only Christ was around... so we could kill him again and again to see if he keeps coming back


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group