Why? How? - ultimate truth

Originally posted by twhitehead
Firstly I don't consider it to be physical existence as you seem to imply, and secondly you haven't yet shown why it is either amazing or at odds with my belief system. In fact I wasn't really aware that I had a belief system in the first place.

Everyone has a belief system

Originally posted by knightmeister
Everyone has a belief system

So what is my belief system and why is it incompatible with logic being universal? You have made the claim repeatedly but avoided answering the question.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]And, again, I simply don't understand your questions (2) and (3).
Are not all abstracts based on reality or some form of the same? I think your response thus far is purposely understated, stopping short of admitting what has been charged; namely, that logic is only possible because it is based upon something real, if not altogether tangible.[/b]

Are not all abstracts based on reality or some form of the same?

I don't understand. If abstract objects exist, are they not part of reality? I don't think the distinction is between abstracta and reality but rather between abstracta and concreta. You can, e.g., observe the world and take note of all manners of red objects and perhaps then you will get to thinking about the abstract object of redness. I don't see how that would in any way mean that redness is somehow "based on" there being a "reality" of red objects. It just means that you yourself have engaged in the mental process of abstraction where you have arrived at some abstract idea by considering different concrete objects and then omitting features that distinguish these objects (in this example, you went about omitting distinguishing features of the red objects until converging on a unifying idea of redness).

This sort of abstraction has to do with possible ways in which you may come to entertain abstract ideas. It doesn't have anything to do with actual constitution of abstracta. I think you may be confusing these ideas and unjustifiably drawing connections between them. I think knightmeister is confused in a somewhat similar manner when he talks about logic itself "deriving from" the universe, coupled with his connecting this to our observations of unifying patterns within the universe.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Lemonjello, I think the problem continues to be that some people are
viewing logic as a 'thing' rather than a function. It's like asking, 'Where
did addition come from?' Addition didn't come from anywhere because
it isn't a 'thing' that arises. Addition, like logic, describes the relationships
among things thus superficially appears to be predicated on ...[text shortened]... ogic).

So, the questions don't even make sense, not to me at least.

Nemesio

I think you are right.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So what is my belief system and why is it incompatible with logic being universal? You have made the claim repeatedly but avoided answering the question.

You said that logic was independent of the universe , which implies something that is not the universe. Surely everything within the universe is dependent on the universe for it's existence. Take away the universe , you take away the universe. The only way out of this is to posit something that is capable of existing without the universe existing. This is the only way that logic can be truely independent of it.

My guess is that your belief system does not include things being able to exist independently of the universe.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You said that logic was independent of the universe , which implies something that is not the universe. Surely everything within the universe is dependent on the universe for it's existence. Take away the universe , you take away the universe. The only way out of this is to posit something that is capable of existing without the universe existing. This is the only way that logic can be truely independent of it.

I personally define the universe as all physical and non-abstract entities. Therefore it does not include logic or other abstract concepts including 'information'. I sometimes use 'universe' to mean 'the observable or potentially observable' universe and sometime to mean 'all physical existence'.

My guess is that your belief system does not include things being able to exist independently of the universe.
You would be wrong. My belief system - if I can be said to have one - makes no such claims.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Are not all abstracts based on reality or some form of the same?

I don't understand. If abstract objects exist, are they not part of reality? I don't think the distinction is between abstracta and reality but rather between abstracta and concreta. You can, e.g., observe the world and take note of all manners of red objects and perhaps then yo ...[text shortened]... with his connecting this to our observations of unifying patterns within the universe.[/b]

In your response, you use the concrete (tangible/physical) to characterize how one arrives at the abstract, which is essentially what we are driving at.

In fact, you (or anyone else) would be hard pressed to describe anything abstract without the illustrative use of concrete physical items. We must point to our physical experience in order to reference any abstract thought.

And yet there exists abstractions seemingly without any physical representations, for which we must use our emotional/mental experience in order to have any reference to the same. For instance, when we speak of such things as justice, free will, love, peace and etc., these abstractions can only be understood in light of non-physical, non-concrete experience (whether or not there be physical consequences related to any of the same).

Such non-physical abstractions strongly infer a separate reality upon which they are based, by virtue of the fact that there exists no physical manifestation of the same.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Such non-physical abstractions strongly infer a separate reality upon which they are based, by virtue of the fact that there exists no physical manifestation of the same.

I suspect you are making two errors:
1. You are assuming that since abstracts are normally applied to reality then reality is a requirement for them.
2. You are talking about abstracts which are generally applied to other abstracts and claiming (because you do not realize that they are based on other abstracts) that there must exist a reality to base them on.

To illustrate, the integers may be seen as an abstract representation of objects. But what about concepts like differentiation? It is an abstract concept relating to an abstract two dimensional plane with two axis with real numbers which is a further abstraction of integers. But does this mean that because you may not see the link between differentiation and the real world that one should instantiate the existence of some other 'reality'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I suspect you are making two errors:
1. You are assuming that since abstracts are normally applied to reality then reality is a requirement for them.
2. You are talking about abstracts which are generally applied to other abstracts and claiming (because you do not realize that they are based on other abstracts) that there must exist a reality to base th ...[text shortened]... ntiation and the real world that one should instantiate the existence of some other 'reality'?

Your suspicions are incorrect. Numbers are abstract in that they can be considered without an attachment to a particular physical reality; what makes numbers part of reality is that there is anything to count in the first place. They merely stand as representative of anything.

No matter how far removed the relationship becomes, the initial relationship is impossible without the physical reality first.

And, as stated, you (thus far) have a difficult time describing even one abstraction which is not related to physical reality, however distant the linkage. Your example of differentiation shows just the opposite of your intention: integers are representative of physical reality, both possible and impossible.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And, as stated, you (thus far) have a difficult time describing even one abstraction which is not related to physical reality, however distant the linkage. Your example of differentiation shows just the opposite of your intention: integers are representative of physical reality, both possible and impossible.

If globble and ~bloopdingle, then gingleflorp.
If bloopdingle, then ~toopenzingert.
If primptangle, then zingtrauben and globble.

There you go. An abstaction not related to a physical reality. I bet you
could make up some, too.

I'd make up my own alphabet if RHP would allow me to post in it. And,
if you object to my using 'if,' 'then' and 'and,' you can replace them
with 'ya,' 'zo' and 'xu' respectively if you want the full abstract feel to it.

Nemesio

Originally posted by twhitehead
I personally define the universe as all physical and non-abstract entities. Therefore it does not include logic or other abstract concepts including 'information'. I sometimes use 'universe' to mean 'the observable or potentially observable' universe and sometime to mean 'all physical existence'.

[b]My guess is that your belief system does not include ...[text shortened]... would be wrong. My belief system - if I can be said to have one - makes no such claims.

So (since logic implies some kind of intelligence or reasoning) you would accept the possibility of an independent intelligence to the universe.?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So (since logic implies some kind of intelligence or reasoning) you would accept the possibility of an independent intelligence to the universe.?

Logic, like numbers, exists irrespective of any intelligent entities. Only
the articulation of logical expressions (or numerical ones) requires it.

Think of it this way: imagine that in some other universe somewhere
in some alternate reality, there is a planet upon which a single apple tree
grows. There are no intelligent life forms anywhere in the entire universe,
the entire reality. If the wind blows an knocks down two apples from the
tree onto the ground, there are two apples on the ground regardless of
the fact that nothing exists that can count them. Now, such information
is useless, of course, because there is nothing there to count them, but
this doesn't change that fact. If the wind blows again and knocks three
more down (addition) there are five. We can talk about this imaginary
circumstance because we can visualize the abstractions involved. Our
visualizing it doesn't make it real, but neither does our non-knowledge
of such events makes it unreal.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
If globble and ~bloopdingle, then gingleflorp.
If bloopdingle, then ~toopenzingert.
If primptangle, then zingtrauben and globble.

There you go. An abstaction not related to a physical reality. I bet you
could make up some, too.

I'd make up my own alphabet if RHP would allow me to post in it. And,
if you object to my using 'if,' 'then' and 'and,' ...[text shortened]... a,' 'zo' and 'xu' respectively if you want the full abstract feel to it.

Nemesio

Surely you jest. Does glooble follow a rule? Then it mimics reality. It acts like something in reality. Just as Klingon or Tolkien-talk abides by rules with an intended result, your 'abstaction' creation cannot break free from its relation to reality.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Logic, like numbers, exists irrespective of any intelligent entities. Only
the articulation of logical expressions (or numerical ones) requires it.

Think of it this way: imagine that in some other universe somewhere
in some alternate reality, there is a planet upon which a single apple tree
grows. There are no intelligent life forms anywhere i ...[text shortened]... make it real, but neither does our non-knowledge
of such events makes it unreal.

Nemesio

Or, think of it this way.

According to your analogy, it stands to reason that such and such will happen, given the rules of said universe. Whether it happens or not, whether we know it or not, we have the ability to reason regarding eventualities, possibilities, impossibilities, reality and etc.

In a soul-less universe, there is only action and reaction; logic is the monopoly of the soul-ed.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Surely you jest. Does glooble follow a rule? Then it mimics reality. It acts like something in reality. Just as Klingon or Tolkien-talk abides by rules with an intended result, your 'abstaction' creation cannot break free from its relation to reality.

How do you know that it mimics reality? You don't even know what a globble is or what the resulting
gingleflorp entails. It may not mimic anything in reality. I don't know; it's an abstraction.

Or, maybe, reality mimics it. Who knows?

Unlike Klingon, my abstract examples have no intended result; they don't communicate anything
except their abstract relationships.

Nemesio