Whence comes logic

How do forces precede matter ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They are the fundamental forces that pulled energy into the compact form we call matter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since all your forces are weak forces , very weak forces , how did they overcome energy ?

And what " form(s) of energy " are you basing your theory on ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1] Who said they are weak?
2] What do you mean by "overcome energy"?

It is not "my" theory; it is the standard model, and it is consistent with all current observations, both cosmologic and subatomic.

 

You have to assume! The four fundamental forces?! Are you kidding?!
I just meant nature itself.

Must be too simple to be true, I guess.
EB

 

What is nature if not the 4 fundamental forces?

You are avoiding the question.
Give me an example of 'nature' - one that defies logic. If not, your line of argument is invalidated.

 

Nature is what we call nature:

This is a forum here, not a scientific conference. If you can't speak English the way people do, I'm not going to understand what you say.

Sorry, I'm not understanding what you say.

What argument?
EB

 

He has to assume that you are asking questions about "nature" that correspond to the questions theoretical and experimental physicists ask about . . . "stuff that happens".

But you aren't doing that, are you?

 

OK, I accept that as a retraction.

Any logic we hold that seems to be falsified by "the material world and its phenomena" is, by definition, flawed logic, and must be revised.

 

Are the 4 fundamental forces logical phenomena? We know how they function logically, but we have no clue as to why they should logically exist, no?

We know how that gravity is associated with mass. But is that necessarily logical?
I think it is, but I'll admit I have no clue why that should be so. Mass warps the fabric of spacetime?

 

My assertion was: show me an example of nature that defies logic and I will show you some flawed logic.

P1] We acknowledge, as a general rule, that we do not actually know every mechanism of everything.
P2] The universe actually exists. Therefore, the mechanism by which it exists is real (i.e. extant).
C] Therefore, any illogic we might come up with will simply be matter of us not seeing all the moving pieces that are actually there in reality.

 

You referred to an argument and now you can't even admit there was no argument.
Oh, alright, I'll take that as a retraction.

Well, you may believe that but you certainly ain't going to prove it any time soon.
EB

 

Sorry but that definitely is a good example of flawed logic.
The guy who naively believes human logic should be flawless or it's not logic immediately proceed with making an argument that's a non-sequitur. Bravo! Well done, mate!
EB

 

He had to?! Really?! No, it's just the result of a warped intellect.

???
Doing what?! Your post doesn't make sense.
EB

 

Here is the OP again for those who might be interested:

Here is your chance to air your views as to whence comes logic.

As a motivation introduction, I observe that most educated people take logic to be a branch of mathematics, or perhaps whatever mathematicians study that they call "logic" since broadly the beginning of the 20th century. Yet, the first systematic presentation of what humans understand of logical rules was made by Aristotle and that was something like 2,400 years ago, and as far as I know, most intellectuals since have accepted Aristotle's presentation as correct. I'm not aware that anything in mathematical logic shows Aristotle was wrong.

Whatever the case, is it possible to study anything if there isn't something to study? This suggests logic exists somehow somewhere. But where exactly?

Traditionally, philosophers see rules of logic as necessary and a priori, rather than contingent and empirical. Putnam argued they could be empirical, taking the example of Quantum Physics to support this suggestion. Yet, even a priori rules have to come from somewhere unless you think God the merciful help us sort out the necessary from the contingent.

If we all have our own personal sense of logic, why is it most intellectuals agreed with Aristotle's logic (and I would assume most people here)? But if we all have the same logic, how come?

And where are we supposed to look when we want to produce a method of logic that, somehow, would be correct?
EB

 

This was your argument:

In fact, our logic is literally falsified by nature.

You can tell because we were talking about it for quite a few posts - you asserting it was true, me refuting it.

 

Did none of those things. Straw man.
Argue in good faith.

 

Speakpigeon is disrupting the otherwise civil discourse of this thread. Whether or not he has an argument to make, he seems more interested in trolling.
Gonna put him on Ignore for a bit to raise the signal-to-noise ratio of the thread.
Maybe he'll change his mind.

 

It's not an argument, it's a simple statement of facts. You're welcome to disagree with me but please don't make up any tale about it being an argument.
If you don't know the difference between an argument and a simple observation, this is a problem for you, not for me.
EB

 

Please note I reported your post. You've made two unsupported allegations in it.
EB