Magic! A Logical Impossibility

[Sriram]

You are just massaging the meaning of the word 'logic' to suit your own private view.  That things might appear logical or illogical to us is more about the deficit in our comprehension.  A logical proposition is either valid or it is not valid, it matters not a jot what the cultural context of people arguing about it is.  Truth is not relative in the end.

But Truth is not necessarily 'logical'. That is the point.

Logic is a product of the human intellect. Truth need not fall within those parameters.

[torridon]

But Truth is not necessarily 'logical'. That is the point.

Logic is a product of the human intellect. Truth need not fall within those parameters.

That is not right.  The truth of any given scenario, or the logic underlying it, is for us to discover, we do not invent it.  We merely invent the language with which to describe it.  That the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides of the triangle is something we had to discover and mathematical logic is just a particular case of logic applied to geometric and numerical concepts.  Triangles were always triangles were always triangles long before humans evolved to ponder their underlying logic.

[Sriram]

That is not right.  The truth of any given scenario, or the logic underlying it, is for us to discover, we do not invent it.  We merely invent the language with which to describe it.  That the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides of the triangle is something we had to discover and mathematical logic is just a particular case of logic applied to geometric and numerical concepts.  Triangles were always triangles were always triangles long before humans evolved to ponder their underlying logic.

You are just going round and round around the same point....but not admitting that there could be many aspects of reality that we may never understand through our logic and our technology.

You are scared that once you do that...someone will immediately push God down your throat...right?!   

[jeremyp]

You are just going round and round around the same point....but not admitting that there could be many aspects of reality that we may never understand through our logic and our technology.

You are scared that once you do that...someone will immediately push God down your throat...right?! 

No the reason we are going round in circles is because you don't seem to be able to  grasp what logic actually is.

[Gordon]

You are just going round and round around the same point....but not admitting that there could be many aspects of reality that we may never understand through our logic and our technology.

Could there: how could you ever know (as opposed to just asserting).

You are scared that once you do that...someone will immediately push God down your throat...right?! 

Wrong.

[Udayana]

Fortunately, once you have got logic out of the way, you can make up any rubbish you like with no need to account for it!

[Sriram]

That is not right.  The truth of any given scenario, or the logic underlying it, is for us to discover, we do not invent it.  We merely invent the language with which to describe it.  That the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides of the triangle is something we had to discover and mathematical logic is just a particular case of logic applied to geometric and numerical concepts.  Triangles were always triangles were always triangles long before humans evolved to ponder their underlying logic.

If a String (supposedly) vibrates in eleven dimensions and 'creates' the world...there is no logic that you can possibly apply to it. It is just something you accept as a possibility.... on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.

When someone says that Parallel universes could exist inches from us but still be inaccessible to us....there is no logic you can apply to it. It is just a possibility that you accept....again on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.

However, if someone says that Spiritual Worlds could exist inches from us and still be inaccessible to us...that would seem absolutely illogical to you! 

That is the problem.

[torridon]

If a String (supposedly) vibrates in eleven dimensions and 'creates' the world...there is no logic that you can possibly apply to it. It is just something you accept as a possibility.... on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.

When someone says that Parallel universes could exist inches from us but still be inaccessible to us....there is no logic you can apply to it. It is just a possibility that you accept....again on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.

However, if someone says that Spiritual Worlds could exist inches from us and still be inaccessible to us...that would seem absolutely illogical to you! 

That is the problem.

Humans did not evolve to think rationally; what you describe is our growing pains as we learn to think outwith our anthropic intuitions.  At one time people would have found the idea of a spherical Earth completely illogical.  That is not because it was illogical it was merely because of the deficit in human comprehension at that time.  You are still confusing our level of comprehension with logic.

[Sriram]

Humans did not evolve to think rationally; what you describe is our growing pains as we learn to think outwith our anthropic intuitions.  At one time people would have found the idea of a spherical Earth completely illogical.  That is not because it was illogical it was merely because of the deficit in human comprehension at that time.  You are still confusing our level of comprehension with logic.

Yes.....'At one time people would have found the idea of a spherical Earth completely illogical.'......that's it...Period!  Now...don't immediately say 'it is not illogical' as though logic is something Absolute out there that decides all reality. Nothing of that sort.

Logic is not absolute.  It is relative and connected to our current understanding.

Parallel Universes today seem perfectly logical merely because of scientific authority. We just nod along and get used to certain concepts.

Similarly, tomorrow we could accept and get used to the idea of an After-Life or Spiritual Worlds or Intelligent Creation and so on....and that would be perfectly logical.  And this point is what you don't seem willing to grasp.

[Gordon]

Similarly, tomorrow we could accept and get used to the idea of an After-Life or Spiritual Worlds or Intelligent Creation and so on....and that would be perfectly logical.

Only if this outbreak of 'logic' is accompanied by the abandonment of both reason and rational enquiry. You seem to be using 'logic' as a synonym for woo.

[jeremyp]

If a String (supposedly) vibrates in eleven dimensions and 'creates' the world...there is no logic that you can possibly apply to it. It is just something you accept as a possibility.... on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.

That is a fundamentally inaccurate presentation of what string theory is. Please stop using it.

When someone says that Parallel universes could exist inches from us but still be inaccessible to us....there is no logic you can apply to it. It is just a possibility that you accept....again on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.

However, if someone says that Spiritual Worlds could exist inches from us and still be inaccessible to us...that would seem absolutely illogical to you! 

That is the problem.

Under current theories of the Universe, other parallel universes are a possibility. If you apply logic to the laws as we understand them, parallel universes are not excluded. Spiritual Universes suffer from the problem of being not well enough defined for science to say anything at all about them.

[jeremyp]

Yes.....'At one time people would have found the idea of a spherical Earth completely illogical.'......that's it...Period!  Now...don't immediately say 'it is not illogical' as though logic is something Absolute

Logic is an absolute. Sorry, but you are wrong.

Logic is not absolute.  It is relative and connected to our current understanding.

Wrong. How we apply logic to the real world is connected to our understanding of it, but logic itself is absolute.

Philosophers talk about two properties of logical arguments:

• Validity
• Soundness

An argument is logically valid if it is internally consistent. To take an example from Wikipedia

1 All organisms with wings can fly.
2 Penguins have wings.
Therefore,
3 penguins can fly

This is a logically valid argument. If the premises are true (1 and 2), the conclusion (3) is also true. Your understanding of penguins, wings and flying are irrelevant, the argument is logically valid.

An argument is sound if is valid and its premises are true. Clearly, the above argument is not sound because premise number 1 is false. However, just because we know premise number 1 is false doesn't mean the logic is wrong.

[torridon]

Yes.....'At one time people would have found the idea of a spherical Earth completely illogical.'......that's it...Period!  Now...don't immediately say 'it is not illogical' as though logic is something Absolute out there that decides all reality. Nothing of that sort.

Logic is not absolute.  It is relative and connected to our current understanding.

Well you are wrong, and stubbornly wrong to boot.  See Jeremy's post above for a much clearer understanding of logic.  You are just continuing to mistake comprehension for logic. Not the same thing at all.

[Udayana]

...
An argument is logically valid if it is internally consistent. To take an example from Wikipedia

1 All organisms with wings can fly.
2 Penguins have wings.
Therefore,
3 penguins can fly

This is a logically valid argument. If the premises are true (1 and 2), the conclusion (3) is also true. Your understanding of penguins, wings and flying are irrelevant, the argument is logically valid.

An argument is sound if is valid and its premises are true. Clearly, the above argument is not sound because premise number 1 is false. However, just because we know premise number 1 is false doesn't mean the logic is wrong.

hmm.. but you have not considered spiritual logic and yogic flying ... one day Jonathan Livingstone Penguin will rise to a higher level ... and fly!

Wings or no wings, premises be damned! I'm just worried about how his chicks will find him.
 

[Walter]

Sriram

woo woo = woo woo
no matter how much you want it  to be  true true

[Sriram]

That is a fundamentally inaccurate presentation of what string theory is. Please stop using it.
Under current theories of the Universe, other parallel universes are a possibility. If you apply logic to the laws as we understand them, parallel universes are not excluded. Spiritual Universes suffer from the problem of being not well enough defined for science to say anything at all about them.

Why do you think Parallel Universes postulated by scientists are different from the more popularly understood Spiritual worlds?

[Dicky Underpants]

If a String (supposedly) vibrates in eleven dimensions and 'creates' the world...there is no logic that you can possibly apply to it. It is just something you accept as a possibility.... on the authority of some scientists and their mathematics.

"If" is the key word. Some people, and some scientists may accept that such things are a possibility. I've heard some other scientists assert that seven dimensions are all that are required to resolve certain problems that arise in the current state of play in the "quantum" and "relativity" argument.
However, imagining six impossible things before breakfast does absolutely nothing to firmly advance scientific understanding. One can imaging all kinds of pseudo-scientific woo, from wormholes to the warp-drives in Star-Trek. Speculative hypotheses can be thrown up all the time. You seem to take a peculiar delight in saying "Wow" about every fantastical thing you've ever read. But I understand that the gap between speculative hypothesis and valuable scientific theory requires a lot of hard work.

[Sriram]

"If" is the key word. Some people, and some scientists may accept that such things are a possibility. I've heard some other scientists assert that seven dimensions are all that are required to resolve certain problems that arise in the current state of play in the "quantum" and "relativity" argument.
However, imagining six impossible things before breakfast does absolutely nothing to firmly advance scientific understanding. One can imaging all kinds of pseudo-scientific woo, from wormholes to the warp-drives in Star-Trek. Speculative hypotheses can be thrown up all the time. You seem to take a peculiar delight in saying "Wow" about every fantastical thing you've ever read. But I understand that the gap between speculative hypothesis and valuable scientific theory requires a lot of hard work.

I agree the Sting theory is speculative and not likely to be proved at any time  soon...(if at all at any time).    But it is nevertheless accepted as a possibility and as a valid hypothesis by most people around the world.  And it is included in many derived theories of the world.

How can this be so...when it defeats logic?  If String theory and parallel universes and Singularity and Dark Matter and many other such ideas can be accepted as possible even though they are hardly logical ...why should ideas of an after-life, spirit, reincarnation and such, be dismissed as illogical?!

The problem is the mindset against religion and the confusion of spiritual philosophies with religious mythology. Because certain mythological ideas are dismissed as illogical or untrue, all spirituality is dismissed.  This is incorrect!

[Walter]

I agree the Sting theory is speculative and not likely to be proved at any time  soon...(if at all at any time).    But it is nevertheless accepted as a possibility and as a valid hypothesis by most people around the world.  And it is included in many derived theories of the world.

How can this be so...when it defeats logic?  If String theory and parallel universes and Singularity and Dark Matter and many other such ideas can be accepted as possible even though they are hardly logical ...why should ideas of an after-life, spirit, reincarnation and such, be dismissed as illogical?!

The problem is the mindset against religion and the confusion of spiritual philosophies with religious mythology. Because certain mythological ideas are dismissed as illogical or untrue, all spirituality is dismissed.  This is incorrect!

I understand the meaning of the individual words but can make no sense of them in this order. 

[jeremyp]

Why do you think Parallel Universes postulated by scientists are different from the more popularly understood Spiritual worlds?

It's explained in the post you quoted.

[jeremyp]

I agree the Sting theory is speculative and not likely to be proved at any time  soon...(if at all at any time).    But it is nevertheless accepted as a possibility and as a valid hypothesis by most people around the world.  And it is included in many derived theories of the world.

How can this be so...when it defeats logic?

It doesn't defeat logic. If string theory defeated logic, it would have been thrown away by now.

If String theory and parallel universes and Singularity and Dark Matter and many other such ideas can be accepted as possible even though they are hardly logical ...why should ideas of an after-life, spirit, reincarnation and such, be dismissed as illogical?!

I don't dismiss them as illogical, I dismiss them as useless. They are not useful as a tool for understanding the World. String theory and parallel universes also aren't that useful yet, but they show some potential.

The problem is the mindset against religion and the confusion of spiritual philosophies with religious mythology. Because certain mythological ideas are dismissed as illogical or untrue, all spirituality is dismissed.  This is incorrect!

No the problem is your willingness to conflate myth and scientific speculation.

[Sriram]

It doesn't defeat logic. If string theory defeated logic, it would have been thrown away by now.
I don't dismiss them as illogical, I dismiss them as useless. They are not useful as a tool for understanding the World. String theory and parallel universes also aren't that useful yet, but they show some potential.
No the problem is your willingness to conflate myth and scientific speculation.

What is logical about a tiny thing like a String vibrating in eleven dimensions and creating the universe?  If religious people had come up with that...you guys would have laughed your heads off!   

There is much more evidence for spirit and after-life (through NDE's) than there is for a String or parallel universes. And yet....Argument from Authority (Scientists) seems to be the name of the game...rather than evidence.

[Udayana]

String theory is perfectly logical. It is just maths. It provides building blocks from which we are in the process of deriving the maths of quantum physics and relativity.

Other implications include the multiverse and, so far, other un-testable predictions. It cannot be accepted as correct science unless it can predict and explain significant verifiable experimental findings which don't have simpler explanations.

In contrast, nothing about "spirit" and "after-life" will ever be verifiable. it is not even possible to define them in ways that aren't nonsense.

[Sriram]

String theory is perfectly logical. It is just maths. It provides building blocks from which we are in the process of deriving the maths of quantum physics and relativity.

Other implications include the multiverse and, so far, other un-testable predictions. It cannot be accepted as correct science unless it can predict and explain significant verifiable experimental findings which don't have simpler explanations.

In contrast, nothing about "spirit" and "after-life" will ever be verifiable. it is not even possible to define them in ways that aren't nonsense.

According to you..maths is enough evidence then?!  But direct experience isn't?!  Nice!

[Udayana]

Maths is certainly not enough evidence - I did not say it was. However it does mean that it is logical.

Why should maths apply to the real world/universe? That is a different question.

No model can be accepted as correct except where it is verifiable to the limits of our measurement abilities. .. And it may be discarded when these improve.