Meta model and use of Logic

quote:
___________________________________________________________________________
The null solution is also an option, so is being a Realist.
___________________________________________________________________________

I offer that the null option can account for logical processes, but it cannot account for physical processes.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Therefore, I would maintain that physics does not (and cannot) violate logic.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That's not what has been asked. It's the opposite exactly:

Can or does logic violate Physics?

It is not, and by any means, an equivalent question. I now do not wonder why you have been giving the answers you were, you probably looked at the opposite, which is self evident.

To define things.

By Logic I mean any axiomatic logic

By Physics I mean causes, effects and law governing physical reality

BY Violation I mean the use of hypothetical causes not part of physical reality in such a way as to descibe effects that are a part of physical reality OR the conclusion about the existence of effects that are not part of physical reality, although the premises are a true part of the same reality.


I think the definition itself suffices for the proof.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Therefore, I would maintain that physics does not (and cannot) violate logic.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That's not what has been asked. It's the opposite exactly:

Can or does logic violate Physics?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is an absurd question. Logic is a process within the mind, and although the mind can ultimately be understood as some physical phenomena (it's the way the brain works), but logic is not determined by physical laws. That would merely imply that from the very (physical) nature of how the brain works, one could determine logic rules or so. What would it mean then for logic to violate physics?
Would it be that the use of the mental process needed for such a logic, would cause the mental and physical state of the brain to violate phyiscs?

I think one needs to reflect on the topic by distinguishing between
a) the way the material reality
b) the mind, and the logic it uses
work

They are different.

As such, one could easily conclude that some logic concepts, the mind uses, do not realy reflect the material reality.
For instance, we have a mental model of an electron, being a wave or being a particle. The logic categorie of a particle and a wave are mutually exclusive. So the logic of our mind, does not understand the real nature of an electron, since the concept of an electron is a contrasting model.
Let's take another example. Take for instance the law of identity as a logic rule. It merely states that something is equal to itself.
How does this apply to the real world? Is a pound of sugar equal to another pound of sugar? Absolutely not, when observing both pounds of sugar, one can easily conclude they are not the same. Is a pound of sugar perhaps equal to itself? Not realy. All things in the material world, tend to change, move, transform. The pound of sugar we have today is not the same as the same pound of sugar we had a week ago.
Is a pound of sugar equal to itself at the same moment? That would mean we would want to observe the pound of sugar in disregard of time. But anything material exist in a timely manner. For anything material to exist beside of time, would be something absurd. So, to say "A" equals "A" for anything material would be like saying that they only equal each other, if there is no time, what means, if they don't exist..

These little examples more or less show, that the law of indentity, has a very limited and narrow scope, and in most cases can not even be applied to the real world.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

For a moment I thought I was reading Plato. Any idea what is the influx? How I can get a hold of it? That will solve many of my problems.


[/quote]

Ehmmmmm. Praying perhaps???

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I agree outright with the first three but not with the fourth (I see logic as the "cause" of physics and not as a separate entity and hence the universe may indeed have a beginning). And I'm not committed on the last two.

I find it somewhat amusing that people can't agree on basic principles no matter how primitive the idea. In fact, I often wonder how civilization ever got constructed. Perhaps they just agree enough to build a little piece of it at a time (without killing one another ;o).


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Logic a "cause" for physics? What do you mean, the profession of physics science, or the physical reality itself?

You want to build the material world on top of the world of the mind?

I think it is known, that the opposite is true (the world of the mind if built on top of the material world).

Civilization as a historic proces of mankind, is not based on agreements (they may have been part of it), but on social and economic processes and forces that took place, which formed and shaped the society. We are all part of civilization, but to my knowledge, nobody was asked on her opinion to agree with it or not.

Neither was evolution a matter of coming to an agreement about, for instance, having noses, large brains, or not having tails, but were natural proces that took place. In fact our mind is a product of a long evolutionary proces.

Nature is a process, that can take many directions, acts on many different time scales and lenght scales. As such that proces is neverending. Nevertheless, everything withing nature, and on every (time) scale, has a beginning and an end, although these are not abrupt changes.
I know there was a time I wasn't there, and I know of a time in which I was there, but I can't realy tell at what exact moment I came into existence. When does a human life exactly begin?
But we know, from many examples, that even when a product of nature has a definite begin and end, this does not hold true for nature itself. The earth and the solar system existed before humankind existed. All of humanity may go extinct, this does not mean the world will fade away. Same for the earth as a planet, the sun as a star, the galaxy, and it might be even true for the universe: they all may have a begin and an end, as a natural process.

But nevertheless, Nature will go on, endlessly.

Nature is not built on logic, neither on grammar, or music, or mathematics. Of course, the things are the other way around, nature is built on material processes, and develops from one stage to another, goed to gradual changes as abrupt changes, contains eternal cycles of life and death, etc.
As part of this natural process, the universe came into existence, the galaxies and stars and solar system, earth and it's natural processes, life forms, plants, animals, human beings, and human consciousness, including the instruments it uses for understanding it's reality, like logic, mathematics, music, grammar, language, culture, etc.

To say that nature is built on or caused by logic, is as absurd as stating that nature is built on music.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Can or does logic violate Physics?

---

That is an absurd question. Logic is a process within the mind, and although the mind can ultimately be understood as some physical phenomena (it's the way the brain works), but logic is not determined by physical laws. That would merely imply that from the very (physical) nature of how the brain works, one could determine logic rules or so. What would it mean then for logic to violate physics?
Would it be that the use of the mental process needed for such a logic, would cause the mental and physical state of the brain to violate phyiscs?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

First, the human brain has nothing to do with logic. It works by associations. You are tought logic in school. If you did not, you would have not any clue what it is.

Second, you're calling the question absurd. But then you go ahead to say:

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Let's take another example. Take for instance the law of identity as a logic rule. It merely states that something is equal to itself.
How does this apply to the real world? Is a pound of sugar equal to another pound of sugar? Absolutely not, when observing both pounds of sugar, one can easily conclude they are not the same. Is a pound of sugar perhaps equal to itself? Not realy.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You call my question absurd and then you go to deny the first axiom of categorical logic as violating physics. Please make up you mind.