Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Redonkulous.

Your delusional and off topic, I have said nothing that makes the above post accurate. It would be helpful if you responded to my actual words.

***** to everyone else, is this guy always like this?

KNOWLEDGE requires relations of meaning. Logic in all of its forms is a structure that permits meaning to be extracted via those relationships.

Classical logic is based on Boolean σ-algebra, this is not true of all logic.

Evidence is the name of the topic, evidence is typically empirical, measurement based, and Boolean in nature. Our experience as human beings is based on a 3D environment and the vast majority of our knowledge is based in Boolean logic, does this mean that all knowledge is based on classical logic . . . hardly, modern computer science requires strong skills in non-classical, non Boolean logic systems.

I mean what system of relationships would one use to attain the knowledge that no (perhaps as of yet undiscovered) form of relational logic can account for as yet unknown phenomena? THAT would be a nifty trick.

I mean are you seriously saying we can never know becuase we do not know now? (but somehow you know, we cannot know) Im sure that's a fallacy, but am too busy to look it up.

I think it would be far more productive and honest to just say you don't know.

No. I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying that we can't know because it's been proven that we can't know, not simply because we don't yet know.



I am being productive by recogizing that we can never know.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the mere lack of knowledge of any individual. It's the state of affairs that science has indeed uncovered for us.

The fact is that the true nature of reality is indeed beyond the scope of the ability of any being that is confined to the vantage point and restrictions of spacetime.

This is where so many people have somehow been totally mislead. Modern science neither claims, nor can it produce, the answers to certain questions. And the fact that it can't produce those answers has indeed been logically proven.

There is nothing ironic about the fact that logic can indeed be used to show that it is itself incomplete and unable to make sensible statements about certain things.

If you believe that logic can answer those ultimate questions, then you are simply totally unware of the limitations of logic, and of the limitations of beings that are confined to the experience and observations of spacetime.

The one thing that we do know for sure is that spacetime as we know it is not all that exists. Unless of course, you want to pretend that things like the quantum field are just a man-made abstract construct that has no "reality". But that would truly be naive since the properties of the quantum field have already been experimentally verified and are even beginning to be used in technology.

Clinging to the idea that all of reality could someday actually be 'figured out' via logic is truly nothing more than a totally unwarranted hangover from the classical period.

That ideal simply no longer holds any merit. That's just a fact of life. But it's not easy for people to let go of that. People love to cling to the idea that it's possible to explain everything. That's why the invented the "gods" in the first place. Just so they could rest assured that someone somewhere KNOWS what's going on.

Clinging to the idea that humans could actually figure out reality someday is nothing more than the overly-arrogant counter-part of that same fundamental desire. But there's no 'evidence' that it should hold true. On the contrary there is tons of 'evidence' of why it can't possibly hold true.

So this has absolutely nothing to do about any individual's lack of knowlege. It's a fundmental truth that's true for all of human thought.

Accept it, or deny it. It makes no difference to me. But to "preach" that logic has merit in this context is no different from preaching that Yahweh is God. Neither ideal holds any more merit than the other. That's all I'm saying.

Your delusion (along with many other people) that logic can lead to anything profound in terms of the fundamental truth of the basis nature is totally unwarranted. There is nothing you can point to that would support such a notion.

On the contrary, logic itself hasn't uncovered a single solitary thing about true nature of reality. In fact, as I've pointed out in previous posts observations have LEAD our thinking, where "pure logic" clearly lead us totally astray anyway.

The bottom line is that we have clearly seen that observation trumps logic. We keep adjusting what we consider to be "logical" based on what we observe. Because at one time it was considered to be "logical" to assume that the universe is eternal. Now we've accepted that it's "logical" that it started from an infintly tiny point. Like as if that's even "logical"!

Also, the bottom line concerning observations is that it has been shown that there is no way to make 'observations' beyond the quantum limit. That's been proven mathematically via Bell's Theorem and the work of Von Neumann and others. Logic, as we know it, simply can't penetrate the quantum barrier. This is what science, logic, and mathematics themselves have to say.

So where's the support for any idea that logic can penetrate these deepest darkest mysteries of existence?

There just isn't any support for that idea. Period.

It's a pipe dream of days gone by.

You may as well be preaching that Yahweh is God, as to preach that logic has any merit when it comes to the question of the fundamental nature of reality. That ideal just can't be supported anymore.

The carpet has been pulled out from under our treasured notions of logic.

That's just a fact of life. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with anyone's personal limitation of knowledge.

The old philosophical notion that logic can someday reveal all possible secrets turns out to be a totally bogus notion. It just didn't hold up to the test of time. In fact, it has already failed long before the advent of relativity and the discovery of quantum phenomenon. It actually failed with the discovery of the Big Bang. Logic should have been recognized right then and there to be a totally useless tool for figuring anything out. Because it wasn't "logic" that lead to that conclusion, it was "OBSERVATION".

Observation is the key to knowledge, and it's been logically proven that we cannot "observe" what's going on beyond the quantum veil, that's been logically and mathematically proven to be the case.

So logic is good for some things. Like showing us where it's own limitations are. At least it was good for that.

To say science has proved something is to claim knowledge, how do you formulate this knowledge?

What structure can you place these concepts into to come to the conclusion you are reaching?

Logic is just a word to describe relationships. Many relational structures exist, higher dimensional math makes use of seemingly paradoxical relationships. I do not think all relational structures have been resolved yet.

I doubt you get it, but its pretty bold to claim you know that all relational structures will fail to answer any given question. In fact I would call it droll and small minded. Perhaps I misunderstand you, I just cant seem to understand your HUGE F#&%^N word collage post.

To me it kind of reeks of defeatism. I use math everyday to create new structures, its fun, I am not so inspired yet I have colleges who can claim to have created new structures never before seen, and answered problems once thought unsolvable. I remain agnostic to what can be known. Better to be a thoughtful I say.

Sorry for the double post, I do not really want to continue this kind of psuedo argument. I think I have made my stance on knowledge clear, now back to evidence.



In its simplest terms I completely agree with this statement. I really don't care what is, and is not EVER determinable via strict rational figures, that is soooo secondary to any points I wish to make.

What I think is important, and is all over this thread, is the relationship between evidence and the context of the desired knowledge.

The scale of inquiry dictates what is, and is not considered evidence. If we wish to determine if someone has been in our desk drawer we may just need to have remembered that you left the stapler in the left and find it on the right to KNOW someone has been there, evidence is simply that which informs ones knowledge.

In all cases you use the tool suited for the job, or you create a new one. So Averoes was right, the tool to distinguish truth is logic.

Truth is a matter of statement, and is thus contextual. Higher dimensional logic will reveal higher dimensional truths.

It's only "defeatism" if you feel a need to cling to the hope and dream that someday every imaginable question can be answered via logical analysis.

If a person isn't concerned with that particular pipe dream then there is nothing to feel defeated about. After, all, suppose the truth is indeed as I have suggested and the fundamental nature of reality can never be known. Then what was defeated? That knowledge, in and of itself, should be considered a victory if all that is desired is to know truth.

This is where so many people make the mistake of focusing on their desire for a particular outcome of truth, rather than accepting truth for what it is. They would feel "defeated" if truth didn't turn out how they had hoped.

I have no problem accepting that the true nature of reality is unknowable. Especially from a logical or mathematical point of view. When were we ever given a promise that such a thing could even be established anyway?

My only point in this thread about "evidence" is that there is no "evidence" that logic should reveal the truths we hope to know. On the contrary, I've given what I believe to be very strong "evidence" for why logic has already been shown to be incapable of uncovering such truths.

Is that "defeatism" or is it just an acceptance of the limitations of a formalism that never truly promised to do any better anyway?

But Averoes is clearly wrong. I've already shown this to be the case.

Logic is not the tool to distinguish truth. And has never been.

At one time we believe that the universe was eternal. That's perfectly logical. Untill, we make observations that conflict with that conclusion. Then we must rethink what might actually be true.

So it's not logic that provides us with truth, but observation.

And that's was my whole point.

The modern science of quantum mechanics has shown us that the fundamental fabric of reality is unobservable in any direct fashion. This has been proven mathematically and verified experimentally.

Therefore the real tool for determining truth has been proven to be out of our grasp. Logic is utterly useless if the logical hypotheses can't be confirmed via observation.

Logic without observational evidence to back it up, is meaningless.

And now we have 'evidence' that such observational 'evidence' is beyond our reach as inhabitants of this physical universe.

So what good is logical hypotheses if they can't be determined to be true or false via 'observation'?

If we weren't able to have actually observed that the universe is expanding, we'd probably still think it's eternal. The only way we can make a determination is via observation, not via pure logic. Logic is meaningless without the observational evidence to back it up.

So if observation has been removed from the equation (which it has), then logic becomes utterly useless.

That's my whole point.

Categorical error of judgment.

I disagree. Logic is not meaningless without an observation to back it up, its just at a scale of knowledge less then empirical. If you are not going to deal with the scale of inquiry then you are going to continue to spout meaningless drivel.

This is not how science moves forward BTW (throwing up ones hands and saying well that's that), in most cases we build the structure which provides insight into what to look for, or how to look first, then we can find the confirmation from nature.

Science is a process, its a journey not a destination.

That happens to be incorrect, you take an extreme absolutist stand point and when I say that stand point is clearly wrong, you then posit I hold an opposite absolutist stand point to straw man attack me. I do NOT hold that all things can be known, I do not hold that the set of things that can be known is currently known, I do not hold it either possible or impossible to either know or not know the extents of the set of things that can be known by all beings to ever exist.

There since we have cleared that up . . . I think its clear we don't know; which the set of "we" includes Mr Abracadabra.

What is well known is that evidence is based on the scale of inquiry. That with a given set of tools one might call a moved stapler evidence, and then with a new set of tools and context only DNA would be evidence. Evidence there fore is contextual, the situation must be dictated, the tools must be set out, and if new tools are forged, or a new context found then the scale of inquiry changes.

Science moves forward via observation. Period. In fact, it cannot do otherwise, because that is the very basis of the scientific method.

Take away the ability to observe and the scientific method is no longer applicable.

So it's not a matter of "throwing ones hands up and saying well that's that. It's truly a matter of recognizing the limitations of the method of inquiry itself.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not. That doesn't change the fact that the scientific method of inquiry is totally founded on, and dependent upon and ability to observer and take experimental measurements.

It is one of the great pillars of modern science itself, (i.e. quantum mechanics) that demands that certain aspects of reality are necessarily beyond observation and measurement.

Therefore, science has come to a dead-end. At least in terms of its original basis of observation and experiment.

You can deny it all you want. That doesn't make it go away. Science as we know it has necessarily reached the limit of it's capability (at least in the quest to know the true nature of reality).

This doesn't mean that we know everything there is to know about the physical world. There may be quite a bit we can yet learn about the physical realm. So science itself is far from being "finished".

But as far as a means of investigation into the true nature of what give rise to this physical reality, it's dead in the water by it's very own observational results.

Science has shown us that the scientific method of inquiry cannot penetrate the quantum barrier, and it has also shown us that all of the physical world ultimately arises from that quantum realm.

So why fight it?

Why not just accept what science has shown to be true?

Why is that so hard to do?

You seem to be viewing it as a negative thing. You seem to be totally uncomforable and unable to accept that science can't ultimately be used to reveal all truth of creation. But it is science itself that has revealed its own limitations in this matter.

In fact, for you to hold out "FAITH" that science might not be dead in the water on this point is genuinely nothing more than an act of "FAITH". In fact, it's a totally unwarranted faith because there is nothing you can point to that would suggest that your hopes and dreams should be true. Science has shown just the opposite.

In order for your dreams to be true, our current scientific understands must be WRONG.

So all you're truly doing is hoping that what science has reveal thus far somehow turns out to be a mistake and we can evntually go back to the pipe dream that there is nothing that cannot be determined using the scientific method of observation and experiment.

You're apparently just unwilling to accept the current state of affairs. Either that, or you genuinely don't fully understand just what it is that science has indeed discovered.

There's just no scientific basis to beleive that the scientific method can go beyond the quantum realm. To believe that it might be able to do that is a faith-based dream no different from a belief in fairies. It's just a totally ungrounded dream.

You may as well believe in fairies.

"Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which are there."

-Richard Feynman

"Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

-Richard Feynman

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

-Richard Feynman

I can safety say you have not responded to anything I have said, and thus I find no use in continuing to respond to you.

Love the interjection!

-Richard Feynman.
____________________ BUT __________________
redonkulous:
Indeed! And the goal of that journey is answering a very basic question: WHAT IS TRUTH???
As long as we keep on posing that same "trivial" question, we're going to move in an infinite circle -- finding only partial answers at some of its points... (*** To be precise, the actual geometrical representation asn't a circle, but an Upward Spiral***)

Considering the fact of the "truly" scientific observation is barrely 60 +/-5 years old, it seems a bit premature determining any definite conclusive answer regarding the Evidence.
Unfortunately, logic works only within a closed system (i.e. Static) -- such as a computer program, where all of the variables must be predetermined (i.e. Declared) before the program executes.
However, such a Dynamic environment, as Life, often contradicts, or defies any logic! (QM is but one such example)
That doesn't mean the QM phenomenon will never be comprehended. But our current level of sophistication doesn't allow for our grasping the matter. (not to mention various immeasurable mysteries in the outer space awaiting to be resolved ...)

Science is progressing in a slow method of "step-by-step refinement" -- redefining the old truths and discovering the new ones. We might, some day, discover the answer to even the QM phenomenon. And that, in turn, might set off a chain reaction of redefining some/all of our notions -- the closed system would be "wide opened"!
Well, until then, we're safe to continue operating within our secure "closed" system. However, do not hold your breath expecting it to last forever!!!

On the contrary I've nailed every point you've attempted to make.

You made utterly silly statemens like the following:



Where's the drivel if not in what you've just stated here?

Logic without observation to back it up is utterly useless.

It's logical to assume that unicorns exist from the point of view of absolute pure logic. The only reason we say that it's "illogical" to assume that they exist is because there is no physical evience for one. No one has ever seen a unicorn, nor has any fossil evidence ever been produced to show that one ever existed.

The bottom line is that once you take away observational evidence to back up a claim then all-of-sudden fairies become "logical".



So your position is totally devoid of any merit whatsoever.

Love the interjection!

I agree with Dr. Feynman completely. I respect the man emmensely. However, I don't see any conflict at all in what Dr. Feyman has stated here and my position. None whatsoever.

In fact, as far as I can see Dr. Feynman is actually supporting my position. When he states that "It safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics", he's obviously not talking about the mathematical model, clearly he understands that model quite well himself. On the contrary, what he's referring to here is that no one can make any logical sense out of it. Which is precisely my position. Moreover, not only can no one make any logical sense out of it, but its already been proven via both mathematics and experiment that it's impossible to make sense out of it whilst retaining what we consider to be "logical".

So Feynman is just driving my point home with a sledge hammer. Even the nobel prize winning physicists recoginze that quantum mechanics is beyond logical explanation.

So Feynman's quotes support my position entirely.

I rest my case.

In fact, his quote right here says it all:



He's basically saying that there is no logical explanation and if you think you're going to find one you're mistaken.

He went over this in great detail in some of his lectures that are available on video. He's basically saying that you're not going to find a logical explanation for QM. Period.

And that's precisely in line with what I'm saying. Precisely!

This [b}IS the current conclusions of science!

That's what I'm trying to tell you.

If you have a PIPE DREAM that somehow science might be mistaken, then more power to you!

But to claim that it's science "supports" the idea that logic should be applicable to all of reality, is simply a false claim. Science does not even begin to point in that direction, on the contrary, the current scientific knowlege is that no logical explanation will ever be possible.

So if you want to worship science then you should accept what it has to say, instead of pretending that "logical will somehow prevail" in spite what science has discovered.

The bottom line is that there is nothing scientific about the whimsical notion that logic should ultimately prevail. That's entirely a personal dream of people who can't handle what science has actually discovered.

All you're really doing is hoping and praying that maybe science might be currently WRONG.

That's just wishful thinking. You may as well hope and pray that some god exists. That would be an equally valid venture on your part. You have no better reason to believe in logic, than you have for believing in a God, or fairies.

That's just the current state of affairs. Like it or not.

Logic works within the contextual framework that suits the logical tool being used. So in that sense I agree.





I again disagree that logic is useless without observation, thousands of examples of thought experiments, logical constructs, models, concepts ect have been created BEFORE the observations that then verified the initial ideas.

Dear Sir, you used the word useless, not me, I believe its useful, and necessary for any knowledge to be had, before, during, and after observation has occurred, and within a tight framework observation is actually not needed in MANY MANY cases, so there exists a historic record of account where a logical theoretical framework has been establish well in advance of the technological advancement needed for a given observation to validate the idea.

Also, you have failed to even acknowledge how logic assists in things not found in the natural world. We create models, map the ramifications of the models, and EVEN when the model completely fails to match to observation it STILL tells us things(as in useful things), we gain knowledge from the failure for a given model to map to reality, we learn what kind of phenomena can occur in realities we do not exist in, we learn from ALL relational structures. That knowledge may never apply, however much like Kaluza klien's higher dimensionality was seen as useless and not applying now many physicists feel its the only way forward.

Honestly at this point Abracadabra, your just being hysterical, its so self evident your inaccuracy of statement, I envision while you write this you are frothing at the mouth, so many absolutes pour out of your words, you make characterizations of my very conservative points, its really pretty sad, I mean its not like I am making a hot debated point here . . .

I cannot see really how anyone can argue against the notion that logic is useful even without observation, and necessary for really any understanding of really anything.

I am kind of baffled really, it seems so simple an idea, I really at this point feel like perhaps you have an axe to grind and now I happen to be some how taking on a representative position for your straw man attacks . . . hmm perhaps its time to vacate this thread.

I mean you can go ahead and continue to use logic to try to say that logic is useless without an observation all the while you provide no evidence, nor observational data for the accuracy of your logical analysis of logic without providing evidence in the topic labeled evidence, but for myself, I am going to walk away.

Actually this is probably the single most popular misconception of QM that contines to be passed about. The very idea that we might someday "comprehend" QM in terms of what we consider to be "logical".

There have been explanations given for the behaviors observed in the quantum world. The only thing is that those "explanations" defy our sense of logic.

For example, one such "explanation" is that there is no genuine seperation between anything either spacially or temporally. That would "explain" the behavior. However, is that really and explanation in terms of being 'logical'?

It is, and it isn't. It's "logical" in the sense that it makes "logcial" sense that if there is no genuine seperation between things, and there is no such thing as linear time, then the phenemonon makes "sense". However, what is "sensible" about the idea of giving up space and time (the very essence of linear causality that is at the heart of what we deem to be "logical".

In other words, QM actually supports the mystical philosophies of the Easter Mysticism. Not to imply that it supports every mythology that might also be associated with some of that thinking. But it certainly supports the foundational idea that all is one, and that there is no true speration between anything.

But is that even "logical"?

In other words, if we have to "twist" our very meaning of the term "logic" into such distortions that it includes a breakdown of the very concept so linear cause and effect, then what does "logic" even mean at that point?

So what are we calling "Comprehensible"?

The Eastern Mystics have no problem accepting this idea that everything is one. But do they truly 'comprehend' it? Of course not! That's why it's called mysticism.

It's not "logical". But the Eastern Mystics have no problem with this is indeed where their rational logical thinking lead them (even eons before western scientists discovered QM).

So as ironic as it may sound, logic actually leads to the conclusion that the true nature of reality must necessarily be illogical anyway. Scientific observations merely confirmed that this is indeed the case.

But that's always been the nature of logic. Any idea taken to it's ultimate logical conclusion ends in a completely circular contradiction.

Logic has always been nothing more than an attempt to lift ourselves up with our own bootstraps when it comes to the deepest most profound philosophical questions.

So why anyone would demand that philosophy must adhere to logic is beyond me. That would be like telling someone that if they want to fly they must only do so by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.

When I say that it's utterly useless, I was speaking to the concept of determining the ultimate true nature of reality. I never meant to imply that it is utterly useless in a practical physical sense.

I'm addressing the issue concerning the demand that people make that all philosphy must adhere to logic. You're totally going to a different place if you're going to consider mundane physical applications.

Moreover, by your very own admission logic can indeed be used to describe situation that have never been observed, or that can't even exist within the confines of the physical laws of this universe. Then you say that *some* logic actually pans out. Well, so do *some* guesses.

I've been involved in the sciences all my life. I have no qualms about how well logic applies to the physical realm. Of course it applies.

You need to understand. I am neither belittling logic, nor belittling science. I love and respect them BOTH!

However, I'm speaking to the issue of their domain of applicability.

You try twist things around to make it appear that I'm saying that logic is useless in every conceivable context. But that's never been by claim. My claim is that it's useless when applied to the question of the true nature of reality. Period.

I get sick of hearing these people who put down spiritual philosophies, etc, claiming that they are "illogical" and therefore are meaningless philosophies.

When it comes to philosophies concerning the true nature of existence, logic holds no special place. We have absolutely no reason to believe that the answer to this deepest question should adhere to what we deem to be "Logical"

And in that context logic is utterly useless.

Taking it out of that context and trying to make it sound as though I'm attempting to say that logic has no place at all in any line of thinking is utterly ludicous, and a total misrepresentation of my position.

I'm saying that when it comes to considering the true nature of reality logic doesn't have any more clout than pure guessing. So to beat spiritualists over the head with "logic" in an attempt to claim that they are 'irrational' or stupid is ludicous.

There is no 'evidence' that this world we live in should be based on anything logical. And on the contrary the current scientific evidence shows that it's definitely not logical.

double post

OHH, I see where you are coming from now . . . sigh. Looking for support from science for your particular brand of magic, gotcha. Well sir I have nothing but derision for your lame attempts to support magic with reason.

Good day.

Abra :

Although I completely agree with you, but (* * * Honestly) Abra, I think you owe redonculous an appology! After all, while she was talking about "apples", you were talking about "oranges" (aside the fact that I really LOVE YOUR JUICY, SWEET "oranges")!!! But you tend masking them as Peaches (or some other fruits) hiding them oranges inside the rhetoric...

If you had stated your premiss -- the very first quotation of my current post -- right at the beginning of your presentation (rather than relying on the audience's ability of guessing it), most of the argument would have never happened.

So, from my point of view, YOU ARE "GUILTY" (lol) OF NOT DEFINING THE TERMS CLEARLY! -- thus making the rest of us sweat needlessly!!! (feew, I need a bath!)

However, seems like redonculous hasn't taken your phylosophical pressure as easily. Besides, you might've, inadvertently, simply crashed a few of her "apples" with your "d a r n oranges" !

After all, the whole misunderstanding is because of the simple APPLICABILITY of the term!!!

P.S. In times of misunderstanding, it pays to stand aside and asking yourself:
What did I miss to include in my argument that will make them see the beauty of my logical structure???

_________________ Take it easy, nobody's going to confuse an Intellectual Giant for a midget!!!