What is Logic?

[Cory Duchesne]

Logic is simply the act of identifying, or concluding what the causes are of a particular phenomena.

The particular phenomenon in question might be the 'mortality of Socrates'

There are innumerable factors causing Socrates mortality, but just to name one, Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.

Sound about right?

[brokenhead]

How is mathematics different from logic? Is it, as has often been said, the language of logic? Why are ontological arguments not reducible to set theory? And how can recent (last 100 - 150 years) developments in set theory, especially pertaining to infinite sets, not have an impact on naturalistic philosphy?

[Cory Duchesne]

How is mathematics different from logic?

Do you agree with my definition of logic above?

An 'answer' in mathematics is a particular phenomena, and the particulars comprising the equation leading up to the answer are simply the causes of that phenomena.

[Jehu]

Reason, of which logic is the formal study, is founded upon a ‘first principle’: the Principle of Identity, and its corollaries, the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of Excluded Middle: the “Three Laws of Thought”. It is because of these laws that we are able to ascertain the causes of an event, and develop a logic.

[Dan Rowden]

Indeed. Logic is about necessary or defined relation.

[Cory Duchesne]

Reason, of which logic is the formal study, is founded upon a ‘first principle’: the Principle of Identity, and its corollaries, the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of Excluded Middle: the “Three Laws of Thought”. It is because of these laws that we are able to ascertain the causes of an event, and develop a logic.

I agree with this, but I would add: to think philosophically about ascertaining the causes of an event, is to become conscious of how logic has involuntarily developed.

[Jehu]

Interesting view, in that case, causality should be logically consistent. Let’s put it to the test.

Just as a effect cannot arise without a cause, nether can there be a cause without that it has an effect; for what then would it be the cause of, and how would it differed from that which is not a cause? Consequently, it may be asserted that a cause and its effect are interdependent and complementary aspects of an occurrence, and that neither can exist independent of or antecedent to the other; and therefore, a cause cannot precede it effect.

Is this logically consistent?

[brokenhead]

From the Wiktionary:

A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved.

[Cory Duchesne]

Interesting view, in that case, causality should be logically consistent. Let’s put it to the test.

Just as an effect cannot arise without a cause, nether can there be a cause without that [which is] an effect;

Firstly, I fixed what I thought was a grammatical error. Let me know if I changed the intended meaning.

Secondly, I agree that there cannot be a cause without an effect.

for what then would it be the cause of, and how would it differ from that which is not a cause?

Not very sure what you mean here, but in an effort to find common ground I'll say:

A cause or an effect is entirely relative. From one perspective, we may regard seed as an effect of fruit. From another perspective, the seed is a cause of fruit.

Consequently, it may be asserted that a cause and its effect are interdependent and complementary aspects of an occurrence

Again, not too sure what you mean, but to find common ground, I'll say: an occurrence is not in anyway apart from 'cause and effect'.

And a cause is in no way existing independently apart from an effect, and vice versa. If you remove the effect, you remove the cause (and vice versa).

neither (cause and effect) can exist independent of or antecedent to the other; and therefore, a cause cannot precede [an] effect.

Is this logically consistent?

On a practical level, it's reasonable to to regard birth as antecedent to death, or youth antecedent to old age.

However, from an absolute perspective, the past and future are part of an undivided continuum beyond time, and so it's correct to say that the past and future are actually one - that 'occurence' as well as 'creation' are illusions.

[Jehu]

Now, given that everything has a beginning, and so is an effect, would it not be reasonable to say that its causes must be continuously present, so long as the thing (effect) persists?

[Sapius]

Logic is simply the act of identifying, or concluding what the causes are of a particular phenomena.

Sound about right?

I can agree with the former, which might not necessarily involve defining, but wouldn’t the later involve defining as well as conscious reasoning?

[divine focus]

Now, given that everything has a beginning, and so is an effect, would it not be reasonable to say that its causes must be continuously present, so long as the thing (effect) persists?

I like it!

[Cory Duchesne]

Now, given that everything has a beginning, and so is an effect, would it not be reasonable to say that its causes must be continuously present, so long as the thing (effect) persists?

That sounds about right.

[Cory Duchesne]

Logic is simply the act of identifying, or concluding what the causes are of a particular phenomena.

Sound about right?

I can agree with the former, which might not necessarily involve defining, but wouldn’t the later involve defining as well as conscious reasoning?

I think defining would necessitate concluding what the causes are of the particular phenomena we are seeking to define. In other words, logic, as I've defined it, is the precursor to defining.

[jlj000jlj]

Logic is simply the act of identifying, or concluding what the causes are of a particular phenomena.

The particular phenomenon in question might be the 'mortality of Socrates'

There are innumerable factors causing Socrates mortality, but just to name one, Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.

Sound about right?

Not in the least.

Could you grant some credence to the last few millenia of thinkers and start from existing
definitions before introducing your own conflated confabulations?

[Jehu]

Good! Now an entity, as apposed to a quality or relation, must be constituted in one of two ways: either it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes, or it must be dependent upon extrinsic causes for its being; there being no intermediate alternative [law of excluded middle]. Is this correct to say?

[Imadrongo]

Good! Now an entity, as apposed to a quality or relation, must be constituted in one of two ways: either it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes, or it must be dependent upon extrinsic causes for its being; there being no intermediate alternative [law of excluded middle]. Is this correct to say?

No this is pure nonsense. The english dictionary does not logically define reality.

[Jehu]

Good! Now an entity, as apposed to a quality or relation, must be constituted in one of two ways: either it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes, or it must be dependent upon extrinsic causes for its being; there being no intermediate alternative [law of excluded middle]. Is this correct to say?

No this is pure nonsense. The english dictionary does not logically define reality.

I am not sure that it is the function of a dictionary to ‘logically’ define any term, but merely to provide a compendium of conventionally prescribed meanings. Nevertheless, here are some definitions which I have drawn from my current Oxford English Dictionary, just so that you do no suppose that I am creating my own meanings.

“reality - 1 what exists or is real, that which underlies the appearance of things.”

“real – 8 Philos. having an absolute and necessary and not merely contingent existence.”

“absolute – 2a Philos. that which can exist without being related to anything else.”

I think you will find that I have employed no term in such a way as to be in conflict with the conventionally prescribed or philosophical meaning. As far my statements being ‘nonsense’, I will take that to mean that you do not understand what I have said.

[sagerage]

Cory Duchesne,

Logic is simply the act of identifying, or concluding what the causes are of a particular phenomena.

Logic is an abstract tool that was developed to understand causation.

There are innumerable factors causing Socrates mortality, but just to name one, Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.

Wasn't this guy killed by drinking poison? (Hemlock?) So, I guess it wasn't because he was a man and dying of old age, but because he ingested poison. The poison killed him, not because he was a man, but because he ingested it and it wasn't agreeable with his biology. It was toxic for his body and he died because of the negative (yet perfect cause and effect) reactions happening between his chemistry and the chemistry of the poison. He died because he was a man who died from ingesting poison. Get it? He didn't die because he was a man, but because he drank poison and was a man.

I agree with this, but I would add: to think philosophically about ascertaining the causes of an event, is to become conscious of how logic has involuntarily developed.

Reason, of which logic is the formal study, is founded upon a ‘first principle’: the Principle of Identity, and its corollaries, the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of Excluded Middle: the “Three Laws of Thought”. It is because of these laws that we are able to ascertain the causes of an event, and develop a logic.

I agree with this, but I would add: to think philosophically about ascertaining the causes of an event, is to become conscious of how logic has involuntarily developed.

The will of man is caused.

However, from an absolute perspective, the past and future are part of an undivided continuum beyond time, and so it's correct to say that the past and future are actually one - that 'occurrence' as well as 'creation' are illusions.

There's nothing beyond time, when time is defined as a measure of change. So, time must exist inorder for there to be change. Time was always there and it was only understood by man. It wasn't developed, a sense of time and the name "time" was developed. Time is like the vibrations which cause sound, if there's no ear present, then there is no sound. And if there was no man, then there wouldn't be a measure for change, yet there still would be change, so the possibility of time would always exist and be present...waiting...for someone to uncover it.

I just reread your quote and I know what you meant. However, when you say that the past and future are like one, then it gives me the impression that they are complete, even though things are constantly changing. It's like a whole, that hasn't taken place yet (but will...). One could say that a "moment" doesn't exist, yet it does in that moment.

Another thing, cause and effect aren't separate they are just there (like time) to break up the flow of nature into parts that we can understand.

[sagerage]

Time is like logic, it was there all along waiting for us to discover it.

[Sapius]

Another thing, cause and effect aren't separate they are just there (like time) to break up the flow of nature into parts that we can understand.

Why can’t there simply be causally interactive parts, and that itself be the nature of nature? For “nature” to break up something, it has to necessarily be what that thing is not, so it then would have to be a “part” itself. I don’t consider “nature” something apart from things, so I find it illogical to say “nature” breaks-up any thing at all; it already is, has always been, just like ‘change’, which I gather you already know.

[sagerage]

sagerage wrote:
Another thing, cause and effect aren't separate they are just there (like time) to break up the flow of nature into parts that we can understand.

Why can’t there simply be causally interactive parts, and that itself be the nature of nature? For “nature” to break up something, it has to necessarily be what that thing is not, so it then would have to be a “part” itself. I don’t consider “nature” something apart from things, so I find it illogical to say “nature” breaks-up any thing at all; it already is, has always been, just like ‘change’, which I gather you already know.

Sapius, I think you misunderstood what I meant: cause and effect don't exist separate from nature (nature being like an infinite (too many too understand at this point) amount of interconnected causes and effects. Each effect is the others cause and each cause is anothers effect and there's an infinite amount of these connections). However, there are no boundaries between a cause and an effect and it's not linear or like a web diagram (with causes and effects). This cause and effect is like time, it exists in our minds, so that we can understand nature. It's a logical tool, like logic itself, which we use.

I don’t consider “nature” something apart from things, so I find it illogical to say “nature” breaks-up any thing at all

Imagination is also part of nature.

[Sapius]

Imagination is also part of nature.

Sure, I understand what you are trying to express.

So are you saying that it is perfectly ok to imagine it either way?

[sagerage]

So are you saying that it is perfectly ok to imagine it either way?

Yes (there isn't only one right way. The same thing can be expressed in many different ways), I'm just not quite sure of what you meant by this...

so I find it illogical to say “nature” breaks-up any thing at all; it already is, has always been, just like ‘change’, which I gather you already know.

...What about decomposition? Nature constantly changes and this change can be observed in many, many ways.

Why can’t there simply be causally interactive parts, and that itself be the nature of nature?

It's ALL nature (do you agree?). The "casually interactive parts" of which you speak of is what I mean by the flow of nature (like a river - constant change, causation etc). It's just when I think of parts, I think of separation, which cause and effect is not. Instead, it's all connected to one another in many different ways. It's sorta like trying to figure out the parts of a flowing river and how each molecule reacts with the next. You know what I mean.

[Cory Duchesne]

There are innumerable factors causing Socrates mortality, but just to name one, Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.

Wasn't this guy killed by drinking poison? (Hemlock?) So, I guess it wasn't because he was a man and dying of old age, but because he ingested poison.

If you were to subtract the factor "Socrates as mortal man" from the equation, then the occurrence of death would be impossible.
Therefore, the fact that 'Socrates is a mortal man' is one of many causes contributing to his death.

The poison killed him, not because he was a man, but because he ingested it and it wasn't agreeable with his biology.

You can say the poison wasn't agreeable with his biology, but it's also correct to say that the poison killed him because he was a man, rather than some other creature or object that might be impervious to poison.

It was toxic for his body and he died because of the negative (yet perfect cause and effect) reactions happening between his chemistry and the chemistry of the poison. He died because he was a man who died from ingesting poison. Get it? He didn't die because he was a man, but because he drank poison and was a man.

There are many causes that contributed to his death, one of the most most fundamental causes was that he was a man.

However, from an absolute perspective, the past and future are part of an undivided continuum beyond time, and so it's correct to say that the past and future are actually one - that 'occurrence' as well as 'creation' are illusions.

There's nothing beyond time, when time is defined as a measure of change. So, time must exist in order for there to be change. Time was always there and it was only understood by man. It wasn't developed, a sense of time and the name "time" was developed.
Time is like the vibrations which cause sound, if there's no ear present, then there is no sound. And if there was no man, then there wouldn't be a measure for change, yet there still would be change, so the possibility of time would always exist and be present...waiting...for someone to uncover it.

I just reread your quote and I know what you meant. However, when you say that the past and future are like one, then it gives me the impression that they are complete, even though things are constantly changing.

Change only exists relative to an observer. If there is no observer, then there is no change. Instead, there is only an undivided continuum beyond perception, beyond time.