Meta model and use of Logic

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

That means, logic in that respect is not any different as let's say, language, or music, or math. Nature doesn't go to school and doesn't learn logic, music or math. So, I would guess, Nature doesn't understand logic, and neither obeys their rules.

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

I was trying to explain that the categories that logic deals with, don't lent themselves properly for the material reality. One has to abstract from the material reality, take it outside of it's context, to be able to apply logic on it.

So, appearantly, the substance that logic deals with are not having the same context as the material world.

Just consider this very axiom of logic, and apply that to an apple.
Just pick one apple, and put it on your desk. Study it carefully and make notes. Then come back after a week, and study the same apple and make notes.

Now compare those notes. Would you conclude then, "apple" = "apple" ?

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

Just consider this very axiom of logic, and apply that to an apple.
Just pick one apple, and put it on your desk. Study it carefully and make notes. Then come back after a week, and study the same apple and make notes.

Now compare those notes. Would you conclude then, "apple" = "apple" ?

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

Ok, let's get to order, or to some degree of order other than 0.

Logic has to do with truth or falsity of propositions. It is an axiomatic system of thought for making inferences using premises and rules for manipulating those premises.

Logic does not deal with time. Functions deal with time. It has been shown however that using a symbolic language, the Binary system of numbers and proper discretization, all mathematics can be reduced to to truth/false statements where the axioms rule. This is the story in a nut shell.

Apparently, you are mixing the axioms of logic with dynamic processes of nature or functions that transform ranges of reality into domains of reality. From an axiomatic logical point of view, your statement that an apple on the desk constanty changes is TRUE, and that is the application of Logic. Converselly, a statement that an apple will retain its condition of matter as time passes is FALSE. That is the use of Logic. Assigning the property of Truth or False is done by validating the premises using either experimental evidence or other functions previously proven.

In other simple words, let us say that logic is a way of organising the thinking process, or what is known as the syllogism.

Neverthless, there are serious problems with logic. One is that no system based on axiomatic logic can prove it's own consistency. Another problem is that there are the so called Antinomies, things that do not belong in the sets they describe, so logical values cannot be attributed to them or if attributed, violate other premises and result in conradictions, or impossibility to decide truth or falsity. Despite those limitations, logic is a powerful tool, not the best in my opinion though.

Quote:
___________________________________________________________________________
... Despite those limitations, logic is a powerful tool, not the best in my opinion though.
___________________________________________________________________________

What is the "best" alternative?

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

What is the "best" alternative?

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

I wish I knew Jimi. 64 Million dollar question, isn't it?

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

Ok, let's get to order, or to some degree of order other than 0.

Logic has to do with truth or falsity of propositions. It is an axiomatic system of thought for making inferences using premises and rules for manipulating those premises.

Logic does not deal with time. Functions deal with time. It has been shown however that using a symbolic language, the Binary system of numbers and proper discretization, all mathematics can be reduced to to truth/false statements where the axioms rule. This is the story in a nut shell.

Apparently, you are mixing the axioms of logic with dynamic processes of nature or functions that transform ranges of reality into domains of reality. From an axiomatic logical point of view, your statement that an apple on the desk constanty changes is TRUE, and that is the application of Logic. Converselly, a statement that an apple will retain its condition of matter as time passes is FALSE. That is the use of Logic. Assigning the property of Truth or False is done by validating the premises using either experimental evidence or other functions previously proven.

In other simple words, let us say that logic is a way of organising the thinking process, or what is known as the syllogism.

Neverthless, there are serious problems with logic. One is that no system based on axiomatic logic can prove it's own consistency. Another problem is that there are the so called Antinomies, things that do not belong in the sets they describe, so logical values cannot be attributed to them or if attributed, violate other premises and result in conradictions, or impossibility to decide truth or falsity. Despite those limitations, logic is a powerful tool, not the best in my opinion though.

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

Pardon me for being so nasty, but the issue on hand was was about the relation between logic and physic reality.

Now you state that "logic does not deal with time" and I state "physics can't be timeless", so that means here the answer is that logic does not deal with physical reality. It has it's application outside of reality.

A nasty conclusion, it realy is!

as soon as time involves as a result of an action then that is math, and logic only deals with time when is it known to be true for example: If you know it takes 2 seconds for your radio to turn on then you are using logic, but mist time related ideas are math

The intuitive mind