Are illogical worlds possible?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Logic and Philosophy of Math » Are illogical worlds possible? » Are illogical worlds possible?

Page: 1 2 3 4

Are illogical worlds possible?

nullity
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 99

Posted 05/21/08 - 01:21 AM:	#26
muxol wrote: This belongs probably in Metaphysics. In any case, some people analyze "impossible world" relative to worlds. For instance, a world w' is possible relative to a world w iff w' is a metaphysical "alternative" of w, so an impossible world, relative to a world w, is one that is not an alternative of w. (Here people may ask how to analyze "x is a metaphysical alternative of y".) . I am not sure what you mean by "metaphysical alternative".

Caldwell
Curator of whirligigs

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1438

Posted 05/21/08 - 01:26 AM:	#27
I'm going to bed after this, nullity. nullity wrote: Here is my position: Assuming model realism is true., my claim is that logic can not tell us anything about those worlds. Sure it can. Though, not necessarily. Give me an example, then maybe I can tell you how logic can help us. It is true. Something is "logically impossible" is never logically possible. On the other hand, just because X inconceivable is not sufficient that X cannot exist ( where inconceivable does not necessary mean "logically impossible"). Like i said before. I don t believe logic can tell us anything about "possible worlds" ( assuming those possible worlds are real). By "inconceivable" do you mean, "Oh, yes, it can happen. I haven't thought of that!"? Yeah, you can say that. But that isn't what "inconceivability" means in talks of possible worlds. Inconceivable means logically inconceivable. Logically inconceivable, or impossible, means, it defies reasoning. Tell me how something that defies reasoning can be "thought of" by us? Or conversely, how something red cannot be blue in another world? Are planets necessarily round? Or: Is it necessary that planets are round? Should there be human beings in a possible world, or is it conceivable that in a possible world, there are no human beings, or that human beings are immortal in that possible world? crap. I'm tired. later, nullity.

nullity
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 99

Posted 05/21/08 - 02:08 AM:	#28
Sure it can. Though, not necessarily. Give me an example, then maybe I can tell you how logic can help us. I don t know what you are asking me. By "inconceivable" do you mean, "Oh, yes, it can happen. I haven't thought of that!"? Yeah, you can say that. yes. But that isn't what "inconceivability" means in talks of possible worlds. Inconceivable means logically inconceivable. Logically inconceivable, or impossible, means, it defies reasoning. o. yes, that is great. I am trying to say it defies reasoning. Tell me how something that defies reasoning can be "thought of" by us? My position is: whatever that defies reasoning can not be "thought of". I think there are stuff out there that is "real". What is this stuff? I don t know. i can t "think of", "imagine" or "conceive". how something red cannot be blue in another world? I don t know what you mean. Are planets necessarily round? It depends on what you mean by "necessity" . is it conceivable that in a possible world, there are no human If there are worlds/universes that is out there. Why should there be people?

Caldwell
Curator of whirligigs

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1438

Posted 05/22/08 - 11:25 PM:	#29
nullity wrote: I think there are stuff out there that is "real". What is this stuff? I don t know. i can t "think of", "imagine" or "conceive". Exactly. If you can't think of it, imagine it, or conceive it, then it isn't useful in philosophy.

Gort
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 05/23/08 - 08:25 AM:	#30
MoeBlee wrote: What is an "illogical world"? One in which there exists a proposition P meaningful in that world such that both P and -P are true. Gort Don't give me that barado nicto crap, Klaatu!

nullity
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 99

Posted 05/23/08 - 11:51 PM:	#31
Caldwell wrote: Exactly. If you can't think of it, imagine it, or conceive it, then it isn't useful in philosophy. I think my point of view is a perfectly reasonable one. I am not the first person to argue for a reasonable doubt on conceptual limitations of the human race. It is perfectly reasonable to say that there are worlds "out there" that is outside the human conceptual capacity to know anything about.

Caldwell
Curator of whirligigs

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1438

Posted 05/24/08 - 12:26 AM:	#32
'kay. True.

myrmecophaga
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 19, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 51

Posted 05/24/08 - 12:41 AM:	#33
What bearing does logic actually have on the world (which I assume is synonymous with universe in this context) that we ourselves live in? Some aspects of Quantum theory seem anything but logically sound, and simply because they go against our most basic intuition. And here we find ourselves a problem. From where does the assumption that if something is in [/i]state A it cannot be [i]not in state A at the same time come from? It seems obvious that that assumption is right, which is exactly why we make it, totally unconscious of the fact that we do so in most cases. But is there any way to say that it is true? No, certainly not, and if anything, modern science is doing all it can to suggest that it isn’t. One the one hand science is made on logic, but that means that, on the other, it, along with Mathematics, has the power to utterly destroy logic. Mathematics is perhaps the stronger power, since it has the concept to unequivocal proof. I have begun to wander somewhat off the point, so to bring myself back, the way we apply logic to our own universe is unjustified, unjustifiable, and so we could be in an illogical universe, for all we know. I might suggest however that I see logic as not something inherently present or absent in a universe, but rather a means of understanding the universe. If then we take an illogical universe to mean just one we cannot begin to understand with the tools we have presently to understand our own, then emphatically yes, you might have an illogical universe, if we take it to be one that cannot be understood by any system of logic, then the answer is rather less easy for me to say.
"It would be wrong to call it Patriotism, because the word is so given to misunderstanding. It is better expressed as a concern for your country that runs so deep, you find it physically impossible to switch off and cultivate the garden" -- Lord Deedes. "Where is human nature so weak as in the bookstore?"- Henry Ward Beecher

Caldwell
Curator of whirligigs

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1438

Posted 05/26/08 - 02:59 PM:	#34
myrmecophaga wrote: I might suggest however that I see logic as not something inherently present or absent in a universe, but rather a means of understanding the universe. If then we take an illogical universe to mean just one we cannot begin to understand with the tools we have presently to understand our own, then emphatically yes, you might have an illogical universe, if we take it to be one that cannot be understood by any system of logic, then the answer is rather less easy for me to say. Yes, that is the point. We can talk about something because we can understand it. It is intelligible. We can use symbols to represent or depict it, or we can use language to discuss it. How can we even begin to talk or think about something incoherrent and unintelligible? So to posit that something unintelligible can exist or does exist, you at least need to discuss to us how is this possible? Yet, if you could do that, then obviously, it is intelligibly, conceivably, or logically possible.

nullity
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 99

Posted 05/26/08 - 04:34 PM:	#35
Caldwell wrote: Yes, that is the point. We can talk about something because we can understand it. It is intelligible. We can use symbols to represent or depict it, or we can use language to discuss it. How can we even begin to talk or think about something incoherent and unintelligible? So to posit that something unintelligible can exist or does exist, you at least need to discuss to us how is this possible? Yet, if you could do that, then obviously, it is intelligibly, conceivably, or logically possible. If we believe in modal realism, and take possible worlds to be real existing worlds. It seems perfectly natural that we can extend this realism to including impossible worlds as well. So far, the discussion seems to suggest that impossibles are worlds "unintelligible." What does "unintelligible" mean? maybe it is nothing. Perhaps we can think of these impossible worlds as "obeying" different logical systems. So to posit that something unintelligible can exist or does exist, you at least need to discuss to us how is this possible? This can be said about realism of possible worlds. We don't see possible worlds. How do we begin to talk about these unobservable worlds at all? On the other hand, if we grant the "existence" of possible worlds in our belief system, then we might as well grant the "existence" of impossible worlds. Anyway, the above position seems sort of wrong. I have a belief that "I" have consciousness, but it seems trivial to talk about how it is possible that "I" have consciousness. I have consciousness because I believe I have consciousness. There is no justification needed. I grant my consciousness as a brute fact. There is no justification necessary. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 05/27/08 - 09:45 AM. Reason: capitalization, punctuation, quote tags, spelling.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 5415

Posted 05/26/08 - 05:10 PM:	#36
nullity wrote: Caldwell wrote: Yes, that is the point. We can talk about something because we can understand it. It is intelligible. We can use symbols to represent or depict it, or we can use language to discuss it. How can we even begin to talk or think about something incoherrent and unintelligible? So to posit that something unintelligible can exist or does exist, you at least need to discuss to us how is this possible? Yet, if you could do that, then obviously, it is intelligibly, conceivably, or logically possible. If we believe in modal realism, I don't, so what is your backup argument? and take possible worlds to be real existing worlds. You may take them to be real existing worlds but that would be an idiosyncratic thing to do unless you are just arguing to be difficult. It seems perfectly natural that we can extand this realism to including impossible worlds as well. So far, the discussion seems to suggest that impossibles are worlds "unintelligible". What does "unintelligible" mean? maybe it is nothing. Perhaps we can think of these impossible worlds as "obeying" different logical systems So to posit that something unintelligible can exist or does exist, you at least need to discuss to us how is this possible? This can be said about realism of possible worlds. We don t see possible worlds. How do we begin to talk about these unobservable worlds at all? On the other hand, if we grant "existence" of possible world in our believe system, then we might as well grant "existence" of impossible worlds. Anyway. The above position seems sort of wrong. I have a believe that "i" have conscious, but it seems trival to talk about how it is possible that "i" have conscious. I have conscious because i believe i have conscious. There is no justification needed. I grant the my conscious as a brute fact. There need no justification necessary. Edited by jdrw on 05/26/08 - 05:44 PM. Reason: spacing for readability
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

nullity
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 99

Posted 05/26/08 - 05:46 PM:	#37
rabeldin wrote: I don't, so what is your backup argument? I don't need to have a "back up argument" at all. I am presupposing that we take modal realism seriously. If we can't "agree" on the grounds "if", there is no argument. My "claim" is vacuously true. You may take them to be real existing worlds but that would be an idiosyncratic thing to do unless you are just arguing to be difficult. I am "not" trying to be difficult at all. (I wonder where you get that from?) In fact, I wonder if you are trying to be difficult with me. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 05/27/08 - 09:49 AM. Reason: apostrophes, quote tags

aufbau87
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Location: Southern California
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 18

Posted 06/09/08 - 04:27 PM:	#38
nawitus wrote: Most physicist are starting to believe that there exists a massive number of different worlds with different physics than us, which would explain the fine-tuning argument for one, and explain why our world happens to have these laws and not others. Many philosophical arguments also use so called "possible worlds" that could exist, even though they don't have to actually exist, like so called p-zombie worlds which is identical to our world but no person is conscious. My question is that since people assume that different kinds of worlds that are logically possible can exist, can also illogical worlds exist? Maybe this question is impossible to answer using our logical systems and our rationality. If both logical and illogical worlds can exist, I wonder what else is possible. If you share the skepticism with Quine that the adverb 'Necessarily...' or 'Possibly...' is unclear, it will serve an exemplar case of insignificance that philosophers speak of this new kind of 'possibility' that would render the sentence 'It is possible that that there exist an illogical world' true. In other words, if we can make clear the notion of possibility in 'It is possible that there be an illogical world', then the sentence would be logically false. Otherwise, what are we talking about? In what sense, I would ask, is it 'possible', if 'possible' at all?

nullity
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 99

Posted 06/10/08 - 08:14 AM:	#39
aufbau87 wrote: If you share the skepticism with Quine that the adverb 'Necessarily...' or 'Possibly...' is unclear, it will serve an exemplar case of insignificance that philosophers speak of this new kind of 'possibility' that would render the sentence 'It is possible that that there exist an illogical world' true. In other words, if we can make clear the notion of possibility in 'It is possible that there be an illogical world', then the sentence would be logically false. Otherwise, what are we talking about? In what sense, I would ask, is it 'possible', if 'possible' at all? The word "possible" is not a vague notion in the following context. That is, it is logical possible if it is not logical impossible under classical logic. "impossible worlds" have a technical meaning in comtempory metaphysical speculation. Namely, impossible worlds are real existing worlds, and that the tradition rule of classical logic do not hold in these worlds. This is why "impossible worlds" are also commonly called "non-normal worlds". As used in this technical sense, "impossible worlds" is use to denote, and reference. There is no problem with that usage. 'It is possible that there be an illogical world', then the sentence would be logically false. You can`t make this statement. The word "possible" is not clear. What is possble is defined by what is allowed by some set of rules. Edited by nullity on 06/10/08 - 08:22 AM

muxol
yuletide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1844

Posted 06/10/08 - 12:36 PM:	#40
nullity wrote: I am not sure what you mean by "metaphysical alternative". I am taking it as primitive. But if we wanted, we could reduce it e.g. in terms of some structure of worlds. For instance, we might say that w' is a metaphysical alternative of w (Rww') just in case some individual "in" w has a counterpart in w'. Or we might take possibility as primitive and say that Rww' just in case for every sentence p, if p is true at w' then <>p is true at w (think ersatzism) and []p is true at w then p is true at w'. There are a number of ways to define "metaphysical alternative" depending on one's metaphysics and view of modal discourse/semantics. Are you asking for a comprehensive introduction to the literature? Edited by muxol on 06/10/08 - 12:46 PM

muxol
yuletide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1844

Posted 06/10/08 - 12:54 PM:	#41
nullity wrote: If we believe in modal realism, and take possible worlds to be real existing worlds. It seems perfectly natural that we can extend this realism to including impossible worlds as well. So far, the discussion seems to suggest that impossibles are worlds "unintelligible." What does "unintelligible" mean? maybe it is nothing. Perhaps we can think of these impossible worlds as "obeying" different logical systems. I take it this is the Yagisawa line on extended modal realism (rather than Naylor's seeming reductio of Lewis' position). It's a ridiculous view, more so than Lewisian realism, so a few sentences in which you wave your hands about isn't going to convince many that it's plausible. This can be said about realism of possible worlds. We don't see possible worlds. How do we begin to talk about these unobservable worlds at all? On the other hand, if we grant the "existence" of possible worlds in our belief system, then we might as well grant the "existence" of impossible worlds. If you cannot think of some good reasons of your own to reject "impossible worlds" (on any intuitive understanding of what that expression comes to) you should consult some of the literature that has already done a very good job disposing of the view, despite the fact that everyone knew it was rubbish in the first place.

muxol
yuletide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1844

Posted 06/10/08 - 12:58 PM:	#42
nullity wrote: "impossible worlds" have a technical meaning in comtempory metaphysical speculation. Namely, impossible worlds are real existing worlds, and that the tradition rule of classical logic do not hold in these worlds. This is why "impossible worlds" are also commonly called "non-normal worlds". As used in this technical sense, "impossible worlds" is use to denote, and reference. There is no problem with that usage. Oh, I should have read this first. So your position is much weaker than I originally anticipated. You're making a case for impossible worlds solely on some technical trick used in the semantics of modal languages for getting completeness results. I wish you the best of luck.

nullity
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 99

Posted 06/10/08 - 02:17 PM:	#43
muxol wrote: Oh, I should have read this first. So your position is much weaker than I originally anticipated. You're making a case for impossible worlds. What if I am making a case? If logic has some profound signification insight to the question of "what there is" (which I don't think so). I think it is perfectly reasonable to extend modal realism. It solves a lot of problems. Maybe you disagree? Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 06/11/08 - 01:09 PM. Reason: illiteracy.

muxol
yuletide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1844

Posted 06/10/08 - 02:49 PM:	#44
nullity wrote: what if i am making a case? If logic has some profound signification insight to the question of "what there is"( which i don t think so). I think it is perfectly reasonable for this extend modal realism. It solves alot of problems. Maybe you disagree? Logic doesn't have to tell us what there is. It need only tell us what there isn't. (Notice that even in free logic there are theorems of the form ~ExA(x), e.g. when A(x) says "x is the barber of Seville" or "x is an impossible world" or...)

nullity
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 99

Posted 06/10/08 - 03:46 PM:	#45
muxol wrote: It need only tell us what there isn't. and what would be the "ground" for it? what "can`t exist"? What is "existence" mean in this context? How is logic related to the issue of "non-existence"( or existence)? To me, logic is nothing more but a set of rules that describe a type of inferential pattern. What is so profound about that? Instead of trying to make grant claims, i suggest you stick with simple facts. Logic ough not tell us anything about "what exist", or "not exist". Perhaps you disagree? On the issue of impossible worlds: I think "impossible world" exist given that if we accept: "possible worlds" into our ontology. The framework provide simple solutions to many hard problems. Edited by nullity on 06/10/08 - 04:21 PM

MoeBlee
aka I. Kabruob

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2005
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1042

Posted 06/10/08 - 04:21 PM:	#46
nullity wrote: "impossible worlds" have a technical meaning in comtempory metaphysical speculation. Namely, impossible worlds are real existing worlds, and that the tradition rule of classical logic do not hold in these worlds. Since you're mentioning a technical sense of 'a world' and classical logic in the same context, the technical sense of 'a world' in classical logic is that of a certain kind of mathematical object and I don't know of any such thing as an impossible world in that context. So, what non-classical logic might you have in mind and what technical definition with regard to that logic do you offer of 'impossible world'? Edited by MoeBlee on 06/10/08 - 04:25 PM

MoeBlee
aka I. Kabruob

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2005
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1042

Posted 06/10/08 - 04:25 PM:	#47
nullity wrote: Perhaps we can think of these impossible worlds as "obeying" different logical systems. What logical systems do you have in mind? nullity wrote: if we grant the "existence" of possible worlds in our belief system, then we might as well grant the "existence" of impossible worlds. That's as blatant a non sequitur as I've heard in a long time.

MoeBlee
aka I. Kabruob

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2005
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1042

Posted 06/10/08 - 04:30 PM:	#48
nullity wrote: How is logic related to the issue of "non-existence"( or existence)? By semantics for the existential quantifier. nullity wrote: To me, logic is nothing more but a set of rules that describe a type of inferential pattern. That's what it is to you, but that is not in fact all that it is.

nullity
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 99

Posted 06/10/08 - 04:31 PM:	#49
MoeBlee wrote: Since you're mentioning a technical sense of 'a world' and classical logic in the same context, the technical sense of 'a world' in classical logic is that of a certain kind of mathematical object hmm...i am not sure what these objects is suppose to be. and I don't know of any such thing as an impossible world in that context. So, what non-classical logic might you have in mind and what technical definition with regard to that logic do you offer of 'impossible world'? I don t know the technical defintion. I think Impossible worlds are worlds where maybe there are more than two truth value.. etc ..

nullity
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 99

Posted 06/10/08 - 04:39 PM:	#50
MoeBlee wrote: By semantics for the existential quantifier. You are getting out of context. Like I said before, I don't know what "existence" means. I don't see the connection between "logical quantifers" and the fact that there are atoms. I know atoms "exist." I am not sure how semantics, and logical quantifiers tell us anything about why "atoms" exist. MoeBlee wrote: That's what it is to you, but that is not in fact all that it is. That is how I think of it. You don't have to agree. You can come up with something better, and I can use your definition. It would not matter at all. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 06/11/08 - 12:53 PM. Reason: illiteracy, quote tags.

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.