Paradoxes are signs that the system containing them is limited. To resolve the paradoxes you need to use a different system.

I see things as systems. Paradoxes are signs that the system containing them is limited. To resolve the paradoxes you need to use a different system. This doesn’t invalidate the system with the paradoxes, just that all systems have their limitations where they break and something else needs to be used instead.

 

You are referring to things that seem paradoxical. Something that is truly paradoxical cannot be logically resolved.”

 Exactly. That means the system of logic is no longer functioning properly and you need to utilize a different system to answer the paradox.

==
 We could have reached the limits of our capacities. There may be some paradoxes that can never be resolved by humans or by ANY of our systems as we have limitations both within ourselves and within the systems and the technologies we create.
==
  My point is, we can use the BEST of reasoning: it doesn’t have to be poor reasoning at all and yet we can reach our cognitive limits, never to be surpassed. At that point, reasoning has reached its functional limits. We can go no further. The paradox will remain for *us* and it would be up to a species with greater capabilities to resolve it. If no greater species exists or comes forth or can explain it to us, then the paradox will just have to stand.
==
 That’s a human assumption. An axiom. Perhaps it does or perhaps it’s beyond our capabilities to resolve. When it reaches that level, it’s a matter of axiom to decide, “Paradox cannot exist, we just can’t solve it” or “The paradox exists because we cannot solve it”.
==
 Nothing magical about definitions. If all things are natural, including our thought processes and reasonings as they take place within our brains or the things we make like computers or the systems we devise like logic, then by your definition, there’s really not much need for the word paradox to exist at all.
==
 Oh you can have truth without definitions. What is defining something? It’s putting bounds. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=defineFinish. Conclude. Bring to an end.But if truth is an active system rather than a concluded ‘define’, then knowledge is not limited to that which can be defined.
==
  You’re saying definitions are required by using definitions to support the requirement of definitions. Oh, nvm, you’re operating in a closed loop. Carry on.
==
 You can’t see it. You’re requiring me to use the very system I’m criticizing to dismantle it when within the system you’re using there’s already no _room_ for what I’m going to say, as it will be tossed out.It’s a self-contained system you’re within. There’s no room for anything else to fit. So, carry on.
==
  It’s not. I’m describing your behavior of returning to definitions to support the need for definitions to to define truth, and without definitions to define truth, there can be no truth without definitions.
==
Something of prime importance in the system you are using, is “winning an argument”. It holds value to you. It does not to me. So here. You win. This supports your system and works within the framework you wish to operate within. Smile and enjoy the closed loop.
==
 Yes, and logic requires axioms and proofs. Axioms and proofs are definitions. It makes a full circle. It’s a very USEFUL circle but still a circle.
==
 Well yes, in that system it is. And I’m not knocking it: It is an excellent, practical system for MANY many things indeed.But it is a “world unto its own” and no, I’m not confusing it with begging the question.
==
 I’m not criticizing your reasoning. I’m saying the system you’re utilizing itself is fundamentally limited BECAUSE it requires logical consistency.This does not mean it is broken but it does have breaking points.
==
Every system has fracture points. Weak spots. Logic as with any system. It’s important to identify and be aware of the weak spots of any system so that you know when it breaks so that you are prepared for when it does.Look at encryption for an analogy. The best encryption protocol is broken simply by social engineering, or hiding a camera in a room that records someone typing in a password. Or numerous other ways.The encryption systems may work against attacks from WITHIN – just as logic is a fantastic determiner of truth value when working from WITHIN its systems, but the moment you step OUTSIDE of these systems, they are defeated.What’s the weak spot? Think like an engineer. Where does logic break? If you know those points and are aware of them, you can bolster them up from outside of the system, utilizing non-logic methodologies.
==
 But that is my point. True means “without logical contradiction” within that system. Logic is a system upon which other systems are built.
==
  But… logic is not a system upon which ALL other systems are built. Rather logic is a system upon which MANY systems are built.
==
Yes, historically we can thank Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrie for that  It is a useful distinction and has been very fruitful since its inception.
==
  I always try to look at the history of things. Learning about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Frederick_Ferrier and what was prior to his coining of Epistemology and why can help you understand the nature of truth from this perspective. This distinction did not exist before him.
==
Then logic fell from the sky into your lap, Peter, like the Hebrew letters fell down to form the Talmud.
==
Logic is a system used by human beings. It has a history. The history can be traced backwards in time. There were times where concepts existed suddenly and before which time, these concepts did not.It is a useful system. I believe its *pragmatic* value has become confused with its truth value.
==
 WITHIN its system, it defines truth itself. It is a closed system, “Closed World”. By defining truth itself, all arrows will eventually point to truth when utilizing its system.
==
 
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9051832&fileId=S1079898600005357
The Abstract is enough. There is a history of formalized logic. Before such time as formalized logic arose as a system, there was no formalized system of logic used in the way that formalized logic is used today.It is a system. It is an invented system which defines a process. Other logics are other invented systems which also define processes, each with their own merits and drawbacks, strong points and failure points.
==
 Formal logic is an elegant system for working within a Western dualistic framework, yes. It is very pragmatic.
==
 My issue, is not the pragmatic-ness of Logic and the way we use it. It is extremely useful.Some people even base the nature of the Universe on it in their way of thinking. That’s great! But, to me that’s when it falls into the realm of religious thought.It’s not the worst belief system I’ve seen, but it’s still within the framework of a religious belief system, imo.I prefer to see it as a tool, a system, a descriptive and useful process. Good for what it’s good for and like all systems, also has breaking points.I have yet to find a system that is infallible. Those who find a system they feel is infallible – whatever becomes their religion-of-choice, guidelines and rules they can lead their lives and thought processes by and be enthusiastic about – I think that’s marvelous.
==
 But logic has limitations in rhetoric. I mentioned religion. What is the first thing one often hears upon mention of religion in these forums?“That does not fit the definition of religion”.So, right there, logic is broken for rhetoric. It cannot incorporate words with multiple meanings. They must first be fixed into unchangable axioms of their own in order to build further upon the argumentations.Yet language itself does not work that way.
==
 Yes, etymologically, ‘concept’ is from 17th century science. Idea is via Plato as is his realm which we utilize heavily in Western civilization.Many things are supposed to take place in that platonic realm, including post-Platonic religions of which there are indeed many and when you consider that world cultures are generally not isolated from each other (China’s silk road, Roman roads, ships, trade routes, etc), belief systems such as Platonism enjoyed far and wide travel.. and it’s difficult to really trace its influence entirely.A mistake of modern teachings of history is to see the cultures as separate: here’s East, there’s West, there’s the other culture over there… but there was far more mixing than that, but as the separations of cultures had been rather fixed in our cultural narratives for some time now, it’s hard to extract our way of thinking from it.Anyway, a lot happens in the playing field of the platonic realm.All depends who you ask.
==
 My main point is: logic is a very useful fiction. I wouldn’t dare get rid of it by any means: It’s far too critical for the operations of the modern world and is embedded in many of our ways of “getting things accomplished”.Again, very pragmatic.But it operates within the platonic realm, which is ultimately a useful fiction. It is far better than, say, the way that many religions have used the platonic realm. But still a useful fiction.A pencil is useful to write a map with. It’s the old map/territory distinction.
==
 Consider our conversation. I see logic as a useful human system. That should be a good example of what I consider logical that may or may not conform to what you wish to see.I could give a thought experiment but that would be even further abstracted from reality and into the platonic realm, which I’m trying to avoid stepping into excessively. if I can.
==
 Then again, for me to even say “abstracted” is acknowledging a platonic realm. Can you see how deeply this stuff is embedded in our very language and how we describe things?It’s very hard to remove one’s self from it tongue emoticon
==
 Ok. Consider embodied cognition. This is a concept that fits a little better my way of thinking. I’ll assume you are aware of it.
==
There is a way. Incorporate the experience and the cognitive processes as a system-of-itself.
==
  Well, I like to think of “concepts” as built upon analogies of each other, to increasing complexities.The analogies do not have to be words at all but rather embedded memories that are recalled via a mismatching system upon which we construct our experience of reality. The map and the territory build upon each other simultaneously, each to different degrees, as it were.
==
So for me, Logic is built upon analogy.
==
 as someone who is likely on the autistic spectrum _somewhere_, (nothing official, just observation and study) I’ve spent my life attempting to discern field and subject. To use a computer analogy, “overloaded inputs”.I struggle with categorization as my thinking does not always conform to standard definition of object so it’s like reinventing the wheel as it were by constructing my own internal analogies. [but by internal, it’s not “separate from” the rest of the world – but rather it’s hidden from view]
a study of analogy separate from logic can be very useful. I came at things from an opposite direction: analogy is my strength, rules-of-logic my weakness. I understand enough for computer programming but most of my logic builds upon whatever systems got constructed in my head through the years – long lists of rules for what is consistent, inconsistent, which is pass/fail, go/no go… and unfortunately I haven’t found an existing system out there that fully complies with it yet. Still working on it though. Analogy is a fun study.
==
 it likely does. I’m introspective to a fault – my systems are always analyzing themselves consciously, but I’ve found “resonance” within a number of external systems such as biofeedback training as a kid, a little Zen stuff as a teenager along with some new age things, vipiassana meditation stuff, Eastern Orthodox noetic prayer stuff in my late 20s, and it all has compatible equivalent points.
==
 In human communication, analogy / metaphor / etc is extremely powerful. Look at the thought experiment. We use them all of the time. That’s in the realm of analogy/metaphor. Science uses it. Logic uses it.Look at the nature of symbolism. This represents that. What’s connection? One is analogized to the other.There’s similar terms in formal logic of course, and within logic there’s a whole sophisticated language for this, but they are, to me, analogies via symbols of analogies.

==

That’s a high compliment smile emoticon I have to live with my logic every day. It instructs my decision making processes, how to categorize and sort inputs, what’s important, what can I ignore, etc.

Everything I read feeds into it somehow as does experience. As much of the systems of logic I’ve learned that’s compatible, I incorporate into my thought processes. I’m using them right now. What I learned about formal rhetoric (very little officially), gets incorporated.

A lot of stuff doesn’t. There’s stuff that has nowhere to go, so I discard it.

One rule of thumb I have is flaws. I look for them in every system. I don’t care about “valid or invalid” – to me that’s party games.

“Your logic is flawed” is a meaningless sentence to me. That’s part of a game to me.

That means “My chess move is superior to yours”.

But if a computer program I’m writing doesn’t compile, well THAT tells me my logic is flawed, and I HAVE to get my logic perfect or it doesn’t work at all.

==

Oh any programming I do is recreational. It serves a purpose. I have a goal in mind. I want to achieve it. I want to see if I’m capable of surpassing something I did before. So I take on overly complicated project that is interesting to me – I create the project as I go along, and then I work to achieve it.

Logical integrity has to encompass the whole system and the system includes myself.

This includes my moral values, my considerations for other people, my desire to communicate and be understood, the “game of argumentation” (the back and forth of it), the need to impress certain ideas and make a connection of understanding between me and another person.

==

Your explanation did not compute. If you are saying the same thing 10 times and it’s not being received, then modify your message because it’s not getting through. The fault is in the sender not the receiver. The teacher has to change how they teach if its ineffective.

==

Anytime you try to convince somebody of something, you are in the role of their teacher

==

Oh, that’s not true at all, Peter. Sales people are great at it. Politicians do it. Teachers do it. Parents do it to their kids. Kids do it to their parents.

What’s that famous definition of insanity? Repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result?

I don’t agree with that definition by the way – I was just reminded of it.

==

Within the SYSTEM OF LOGIC, logic represents correctness. That is the ONLY PLACE where logic represents correctness.

==

That’s my approach to my every engagement online.

In fact, I seek out people whose personality types are just like  for this reason: They challenge me in ways I wouldn’t do myself because their thought processes are very foreign to me.

I always learn something, either about them, about myself, or about some subject matter I was unclear on and I always hope that I leave a little something useful behind as well.

==

It depends on the constraints of the system, the specifications laid out for the project, the reality of the situation you find yourself working in, the acceptance of the parties involved, the actualization of it in the real world, and the post mortem afterwards.

What I described there is a basic overview of “correctness” as utilized in engineering from my understanding of it. I’m not an engineer but their principles are similar in many areas.

They’re very complicated and include a lot of contradiction – much of which cannot be resolved using simple rules of logic.

Logic is involved, certainly throughout the entire process, but the scope of the projects change as you go, goalposts move, needs change, and even if you do EVERYTHING correctly, you can STILL end up incorrect because we can’t foresee the future.

==

That was my answer. It just didn’t fit into your system. This is the problem I was trying to explain to you from the start. You have a very small closed world you’re working within that cannot incorporate much more than a few expectations.

==

Ok. Is correctness meeting initial specification? Yes and no.
Is correctness acceptance by authority? Yes and no.
Is correctness proper logic throughout the process? Yes and no.
Is correctness determined by those who funded the project? Yes and no.
Is correctness determined by the community that lives with the project? Yes and no.
Can logic alone determine correctness of the project? I don’t know.

It may be logically correct now. It might be logically incorrect in five minutes. Change is constant. You want fixed universal. You won’t like the answer I gave. That much is logically assured tongue emoticon

==

I consider it useful. I do not think the systems of logic we use can be used as a basis for everything. My own internal logic (my programming as it were) does not conform to the system that Peter is using. Through analogy, like you did a bridge can be made between the two different logic systems.

Are they both logic-as-a-process? Yes. But they are different systems and their processes take different routes.

==

My issue is not with Logic as a way to describe systems and processes. My issue is with “one way” logic. It looks and smells like religion, and my holy book of logic is different from your holy book of logic, which is also called Logic and is taught in classrooms and campuses and is the basis for the foundations of mathematics and numerous other systems.

==

Well I’m glad you jumped in and I always walk away from an online conversation knowing something more than I did before. That’s why I’m here instead of sleeping or doing something else. This fits into my logic, purpose, meaning, etc, all that stuff.

==

That’s the holy book logic I’m talking about. Fallacies are sins and all of that.

My brain, my way of thinking, that is _also_ logic, but I don’t follow the same scriptures you do.

==

Give me something logically impossible for you. I’ll explain how it’s possible.

==

That’s the only way you can think of, not the only way there is.

==

They’re artificial constructs existing in a fictional platonic realm, described via the axioms and proofs of geometry and further descriptions and definitions provided as new systems were developed throughout history.

==

squares and circles themselves are fictional so it’s logical that a square circle would also be fictional.

==

Their very existence disappears the moment you remove their definitions. *poof* They’re gone. Story over.

==

Not with everything else. Stuff can exist without anything to describe them.

===

They can still exist whether or not there is a way to discern a ‘this’ from a ‘that’.

==

Reality ceases to exist if it can’t be defined? Wow. Ok. Well, anyway, I’m off to dreamland – you helped encourage 3100+ words to come out of my fingers tonight, assisted me in clarifying my thoughts on a number of issues in a better way – ways that may or may not convince you, but I now have these novel explanations (novel to me) available to draw from to explain things to others.

So, thank you for that grin emoticon They’re words I wouldn’t have written otherwise and now I have. Good night! like emoticon

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


8 + = fourteen

Leave a Reply