The Shortcoming of Logic and Reason: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The Shortcoming of Logic and Reason » The Shortcoming of Logic and Reason

The Shortcoming of Logic and Reason

Page: 1 2

The Shortcoming of Logic and Reason

cckcckcc
Consciousness Incarnate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Location: ex nihilo

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 230

Posted 02/14/08 - 01:14 PM: Subject: The Shortcoming of Logic and Reason	#1
I want to put forth an idea about philosphy that I find to be unpassable: "Any idea, philosophy, or reasoning ultimatly becomes a paradox at its most basic level of explanation." I feel that this applies to any logical thinking or even sciencentific explanation of a topic. I will cite two examples: 1. Nearly, or perhaps all phenomena in the universe can be explained by a plethora of mathematical equations. These equations are all based upon numbers or variables. However, a number or variable is ultimatly an abstract idea that cannot be proven by an equation. Therefor, the basis for science is relative to the thinker and can reach any conclusion it is intended to make. 2. In Christianity, it is believed that God created all of existance. Who then created God? If your answer is no one, God just exists, then is it not just as plausible to assume the universe merely exists without a creator. Therefor, reality is based upon the ultimate conclusion that an entity of some sort had to exist with no cause, proof, or chance of being observed unbiasedly. In conclusion, one can infer from my prior statement that a philosophical discussion or glimpse into an idea has not been solved to its fullest until it has become a paradox. In addition, no idea or theory can ever truly be explained completly.
"Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment - chop wood, carry water." ~Zen Buddhist Proverb I have this sneaking suspicion that I am really God and have invented everyone and everything as a means of fooling myself into not being lonely. I'm not sure if it is working yet.

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1529

Posted 02/14/08 - 03:58 PM:	#2
cckcckcc wrote: I want to put forth an idea about philosphy that I find to be unpassable: Yes, it can be very hard to digest some philosphy. I would recommend eating more fiber. Or, if it's Eastern philosophy that's the problem, perhaps some yogurt. jd
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Kreius
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 10, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 97

Posted 02/14/08 - 05:01 PM:	#3
cckcckcc wrote: "Any idea, philosophy, or reasoning ultimately becomes a paradox at its most basic level of explanation." Then we'd better not reduce 'em, eh? Some better examples of this would be appreciated by the way. I feel that this applies to any logical thinking or even scientific explanation of a topic. Logic maybe, but I doubt it for Science. Since science is all about reducibility and I have yet to see any real, unsolvable base scientific paradoxes. 1. Nearly, or perhaps all phenomena in the universe can be explained by a plethora of mathematical equations. These equations are all based upon numbers or variables. However, a number or variable is ultimatly an abstract idea that cannot be proven by an equation. Therefor, the basis for science is relative to the thinker and can reach any conclusion it is intended to make. Wait, how did we get from universal phenomena to science? This sounds a bit like the Münchhausen trilemma, mainly that all proofs require proofs to support them and so on ad infinitum. But there's a difference between abstract concepts, like mathematics, and empirical subjects. There are, quite literally, hundreds of people at this very moment working on the basics of number theory; and I can assure you that they are doing very well. Assuming that we can't proof numbers, we can still use variables to mathematically define the workings of our universe; which is why we use variables. Mathematical rules are usually constant (at least the basic example I'll be using); because I'm still in Algebra I don't know any real calculus. So I'll just pose an equation, that we'll pretend represents something empirical, like, oh say, mass and gravity to energy (I'm really just making this up, the real equations are a bit more complex); MG=E Elementary yes, but this is a constant thing. The solution to the problem will always exist, and if it doesn't quite fit the world view; then we'll have to proof it (with abstract proofs which are static). Hopefully you catch my drift. 2. In Christianity, it is believed that God created all of existance. Who then created God? If your answer is no one, God just exists, then is it not just as plausible to assume the universe merely exists without a creator. Therefor, reality is based upon the ultimate conclusion that an entity of some sort had to exist with no cause, proof, or chance of being observed unbiasedly. I smell a pre-supposition of epic proportions. Also some faulty logic. There is an incredibly significant difference between an intelligent and omni-everything deity, as compared to a universe with no mental power of any sort. Therefore we can confidently say that God doesn't require a creator, but the universe does since matter cannot create itself. Someone can create matter, but it's unlikely that matter can create itself. In conclusion, one can infer from my prior statement that a philosophical discussion or glimpse into an idea has not been solved to its fullest until it has become a paradox. In addition, no idea or theory can ever truly be explained completly. Empirically yes, but mathematics is a different story. Mathematics can have 'complete' theories, although this is crossed by Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which I unfortunately don't understand in the slightest.
"Challenge your professors, even when you agree with them." -Herr Iosity

dimitri
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 23, 2008

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 290

Posted 02/14/08 - 08:52 PM:	#4
What I want to say may be is not directly connected with the problem stated, but it can perhaps cast some light on it. The most important problem which is of main concern for us as human beings is the problem to predict things and events in order to control them. That is because to realize even the simplest of our plans we need to control conditions of its fulfilment. This problem is of regular and indispensable character. Or we can not avoid of solving it in one or another way, because our life stimulates or pushes us constantly to work in that direction. (Accordingly our main requirement to the things and people we are into contact with is their reliability or predictability!). Hence such our interest in causes of things. Knowing cause we can know the effect. And we can say that all the science is developed to fill up the gaps we have regarding causes of things. And our concept of the God is developed as continuation of that requirement. At least it seems to me very likely. Coming to some cause of which we can not go further or deeper, from which we feel danger or threat to spoil our plans, we confer to it status of some mystic entity, which then… we try to manipulate or control through some rites or rituals… we communicate with it using the ways we are accustomed to in relations with our fellow creatures. And the main tool in it is the procedure of exchange. We ask for some service proposing to do something in exchange. Or in short we try to please. It’s just a first step. Then we try to put in order the concept which until now was just heterogenous collection of such palliative solutions… Then appears such concepts as omniscient, omnipotent, creator and source of everything, because we ask of it to fill up all the gaps we may have… And the best prove of all that for me is the readiness, quickness and self-confidence with which any believer usually answers the questions related to such matters… Is there any ground for such confidence? This is what we do. But we will never find why we do something, or the cause of all causes. We just can stop at some cause, then declare that we have achieved a sufficient depth, meaning that the explanation is satisfactory or the cause is stable enough (predictable) for taking it as a starting point… Hence the concept of character with which we endow people… Traits of character have been considered as initial and sufficient causes for explaining or predicting people’s behaviour for a long time already… Etc. Looking for cause of all causes is I think just a continuation of this tendency, or two tendencies: to find explanation which guaranties 100% predictability and to conclude our concept, to build a closed system which does not need any additional conditions… Now we can continue to speculate about the prospects of success…

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 1017

Posted 02/15/08 - 06:23 AM:	#5
cckcckcc wrote: I want to put forth an idea about philosphy that I find to be unpassable: "Any idea, philosophy, or reasoning ultimatly becomes a paradox at its most basic level of explanation." I feel that this applies to any logical thinking or even sciencentific explanation of a topic. I will cite two examples: 1. Nearly, or perhaps all phenomena in the universe can be explained by a plethora of mathematical equations. These equations are all based upon numbers or variables. However, a number or variable is ultimatly an abstract idea that cannot be proven by an equation. Therefor, the basis for science is relative to the thinker and can reach any conclusion it is intended to make. 2. In Christianity, it is believed that God created all of existance. Who then created God? If your answer is no one, God just exists, then is it not just as plausible to assume the universe merely exists without a creator. Therefor, reality is based upon the ultimate conclusion that an entity of some sort had to exist with no cause, proof, or chance of being observed unbiasedly. In conclusion, one can infer from my prior statement that a philosophical discussion or glimpse into an idea has not been solved to its fullest until it has become a paradox. In addition, no idea or theory can ever truly be explained completly. Does God exist? We can't prove it. There is much useful philosophy out there, but i'd advise against mental masterbation. Many people get off on that these days.
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

SparrowShadow
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 26, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 25

Posted 02/15/08 - 01:42 PM:	#6
Let me get clear on the first statement... cckcckcc wrote: I want to put forth an idea about philosphy that I find to be unpassable: "Any idea, philosophy, or reasoning ultimatly becomes a paradox at its most basic level of explanation." Is this a generalized application {logical conclusion} of examining many different ideas, philosophy's, and reasoning? Would this not in and of itself say your idea is subject to the same paradox?

cckcckcc
Consciousness Incarnate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Location: ex nihilo

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 230

Posted 02/16/08 - 10:20 AM:	#7
I am absolutely glad you brought up that point sparrow. The very statement of my logical theory is in itself a paradox. For the statement to be correct it has to be unanswerable, but the real question is can it be correct and still be a paradox. I believe it can. Upon a recent discussion with some other about this same topic, we concluded that ultimately through the process of reasoning, answers to any problem will never be solved. Consider unending time, constantly moving forward, and constantly creating more variables in the grand scheme. In order to understand these variables, the only way to ultimately answer any one question, one must also have knowledge of all the other variables possible. In order for this to be possible, one must have infinite knowledge, hence the idea of God. Also according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the person must be an unbiased observer. So there for to understand any concept of the universe, the entity must not be part of the universe, hence God. Therefor infinite knowlege is the only possible way to avoid the concept of a paradox, but we can make assumptions based upon what we expect to happen.
"Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment - chop wood, carry water." ~Zen Buddhist Proverb I have this sneaking suspicion that I am really God and have invented everyone and everything as a means of fooling myself into not being lonely. I'm not sure if it is working yet.

Swordfishtrombone
Death to Malaria

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 05, 2007
Location: Erdschweinhöhle

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 266

Posted 02/16/08 - 10:28 AM:	#8
Just in historical terms, empirical evidence has always been able to overthrow logical/rational/intuitive ideas when the two conflict. And it never happens the other way around -- that something empirically demonstrated is overthrown by logic alone. So then what does that say about reason?
Paul - http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74 "Everything you can think of is true..." -Tom Waits

cckcckcc
Consciousness Incarnate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Location: ex nihilo

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 230

Posted 02/16/08 - 07:37 PM:	#9
I see your point, however I have some thoughts that might dispute this. When I was in high school someone jokingly made the comment to our teacher, who had a masters degree if that holds any ground, that 1 + 1 = 3. Our teacher in turn made the comment that there is a mathematician that has created some proof to overturn the idea that 1 + 1 = 2 and in fact does equal 3. I wish I could tell you who this person was or give you insight into his ideas, but perhaps that is for you to research if you are interested. The point of the story being, empirical evidence is based upon logic and reasoning. The basis for all numbers is number "theory", and the basis for all empirical evidence is numbers. If the above story does in fact hold some ground, how can we justify emprical evidence as being any more correct than logic or reasoning. I don't feel logic can overturn empirical evidence because logic is more basic. Empirical evidence i.e. math is just a way of presenting logic. However, you stated the evidence can overturn logic. I ask though, does anyone create a forumula or scientific theory without logic or reasoning behind it? What you are really seeing is one logical conclusion being overturned by another
"Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment - chop wood, carry water." ~Zen Buddhist Proverb I have this sneaking suspicion that I am really God and have invented everyone and everything as a means of fooling myself into not being lonely. I'm not sure if it is working yet.

Barnardine
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 22, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 03/03/08 - 04:04 AM:	#10
cckcckcc wrote: 1. Nearly, or perhaps all phenomena in the universe can be explained by a plethora of mathematical equations. These equations are all based upon numbers or variables. However, a number or variable is ultimatly an abstract idea that cannot be proven by an equation. As long as the ideas of numbers or variables can be coherently and precisely defined, they can be used in formulating scientific theories without any subjectivity. For precision, mathematical and logical language is more precise than any other sort of human language; and although it's impossible to prove that any axiomatic formulation of arithmetic is consistent, I doubt many mathematicians are skeptical of number theory as a whole. Therefor, the basis for science is relative to the thinker and can reach any conclusion it is intended to make. I don't see how this follows, nor do I see how this could be true. Quantum mechanics and the Standard Model (I'm sticking to physics, since it is the most mathematical area of science) make testable predictions, and since any rival theory must agree with the predictions which have been verified, any theory intended to reach different conclusions will be under tight constraints; and while there may be some wiggle room, any unique prediction of a particular theory will likely be looked on with at least mild skepticism until it can be empirically verified. In conclusion, one can infer from my prior statement that a philosophical discussion or glimpse into an idea has not been solved to its fullest until it has become a paradox. In addition, no idea or theory can ever truly be explained completly. I'm honestly extremely uncomfortable with the idea that anything truly indescribable could exist; it makes no sense to me. I can't come up with a genuine argument against it at present, but I can't see what difference an indescribable property could make to anything.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.