Sure there is. And some people will call it invalid and yet it may solve the problem regardless.
The problem that these thought experiments tend to all have in common is an assumption of an empty universe with only named objects available.
This is not our Universe. Pragmatism wins every time.
It is the thought experiments born in an impossible realm of “start with nothing” that is illogical.
Depends on needs. Think like an engineer with parameters.
Nope. What you’re doing is playing a game. I’m talking about the real world.
Yup. Not always universally for all time but situationally.
Pure logic? A fun game that is useful at times.
The meta rules for thought experiments impose artificial constraints upon the system of possible solutions.
You can’t always find perfection. I get you’re using these samples to point to larger issues. But then deal directly with the larger issues.
Sample: Getting into an encrypted system that cannot be mathematically cracked. Solution: Kidnap the family of someone who knows the password until you can get in.
It doesn’t solve within the constraints of the math. But it solves the problem at hand. It is the constraints that are the issue not the needs of the situation.
It’s irrelevant only within the closed universe you are starting with.
Logic has no existence. We generate its existence.
But you’ve switched to mental frustration. I’ll work with that:
“. If they changed their priorities, they define a different larger problem which allows for them to reject those other problems in favor of others which are able to be solved.”
Yes, this is how people commonly solve difficult problems. Often it is a matter of changing the framework of assumptions which can reveal adequate goals that might have been hidden due to choosing an inappropriate framework and by extension, asking the “wrong question” as it were.
That’s fine. But what you say next does not necessarily follow. You seem to propose an “always on” situation.
” If they didn’t exist, then these things wouldn’t happen to people, they’d be capable of smoothly operating all the time, moving from solvable problem to solvable problem without accidentally stepping into territory which can’t be worked out.”
“You just said “logic has no existence” then you said “we generate its existence”. I thought you said that is has no existence?”
Do light rays have existence ? They do and they also don’t.
I’m not going ridiculously hard biological here and denying the validity of logic as a system and a process / methodology. However, I can’t grant it a full divorce from its origins either.
Until we have other beings to compare notes with, speaking on behalf of reality itself is equivalent (in scope if not specifics) to saying “I speak for God”. You can do that if you wish of course but it moves your way of thinking (to me) into the realm of mytho-religous.
I prefer zooming out to get a field view and finding common ground there before zooming in again.
We’ve found common ground. Thank you.
This phase of conversation I see as rhetoric, in a Byzantine sense where logic is a subset of rhetoric, rather than something “off to the side” as rhetoric is usually seen.
So at first, there is convincing. More akin to a court case than mathematics
Quite true. But the glossary must be in common otherwise people talk past each other, a phenomenon that is very human and very universal.
Specialization helps somewhat but that can also have its problems as I believe we color reality based upon our preferred lenses. So, for example, to a Richard Dawkins, everything will be a form of evolution, memetics, etc.
of importance to me, is a continual attempt of recognizing my own processes as I converse and attempt to use rhetoric to convince that we are not opponents but are in fact on common ground. But to further convince that I may be more correct, I make analogies to similar, relatable things, like pulling in Dawkins : evolution :: you : Logic. But I do it as a friendly gesture and not as an opponent in battle.
This technique is common in documentaries and such, and is one of the ways that logical rational and intelligent people can be convinced to believe things that may or may not be worthwhile.
I’m aware of my use of these things, so I try to be ethical about it. Just as logic is extremely powerful, rhetoric perhaps even more so but in a different way, as it changes the very background upon which arguments stand.