151 views

Uploaded by ChrisTselentis

There is a common fallacy with regard to human reasoning. We assume that our logic is powerful, in fact so powerful and valid that it is above the ability of all other creatures, even above any other kind of 'information processes. We assume that there is nothing that we can't explain and that all we need is time.
But the fact is that we cannot prove what we have already assumed: How can we prove that there isn't (or that there is) something outside logic? We can only assume it and then test if we are right or wrong, but we didn't use any proof in the first place. We can say this: 'Since we asked ourselves if there is something outside logic, this thing must have existed beforehand, so it wasn't an achievement of any logical deduction.'
So the main problem with logic is that it cannot prove itself. This is another way of expressing Goedel's theorem. When we build a syllogism asking for example 'where do we come from?' then we trap ourselves into an infinite procedure where God (or more generally a First Cause) may have created us and the universe, and another God who created God and so on...
On the other hand if we decide to take a 'stop' this stop is of course arbitrary: The universe (or God) has always existed. This may solve our infinite problem but only temporarily because here comes again the question: Who come that we gave such an explanation with our 'simple' logic? What other properties could thought possess in order to understand spontaneity and eternity?
I really don't know what could there be 'outside' our logical realm but the most incredible thing is that we may understand...

- The Level of Analysis Problem. Singer
- Principle of Analogy
- Research
- Behavioral Based Safety Leadership & Root Cause Analysis, 19 - 23 February 2017 Dubai, UAE
- Lecture Notes Epidemiology and Public Health
- Does God Exist?
- Faster Than the Speed of Light
- The Extended Present
- The Origins of Thought
- Full Text
- r
- Koslowski - Theory and Evidence. the Development of Scientific Reasoning
- pypexhibition2016-17
- Retro-vision: A New Aspect of Vision?
- Theory of the Form
- Session 1 - 8. Gaid v People
- Panayides - Aristotle on Chance and Spontaneous Generation. a Discussion Note
- Cede the Political Stuff
- Goals of Publi Policy Deborah Stone
- Ghazali's Concept of Causality

You are on page 1of 7

The main problem with logic is that it cannot prove itself.

If logic is true, then we have to test it. Let’s suppose that logic is false. But

if logic is false then our first assumption that logic is true is false. So logic is

false. But if logic is false then we cannot use logic for any conclusion. But since

logic is all we have then we must consider logic as true without relying on proof.

Reduction to absurdity:

Let’s suppose A is false. Let’s suppose A is false.

If A is false then B. If A is false then B.

B: ‘Logic is false.’ B: ‘Logic is true.’

Which contradicts A. Which contradicts A.

Then A: ‘Logic is true’ is true. Then A: ‘Logic is false’ is true.

This is a fundamental logical loop. In fact it didn’t prove much. The basic thing

we demonstrated is that we use logic.

Reduction to infinity

When we try to demonstrate a truth we use syllogisms until we find a

contradiction:

Reduction to infinity

If P0 is true then…

P0 → P1 (if P1 true…)

P1 → P2 (if P2 true…)

P2 → P3 (if P3 true…)

Pn → Pn+1 …

We can repeat this process until we find a proposition wrong. Then the whole

syllogism collapses. But if our first argument is quite strong (or just axiomatic)

then it could hold true for ever. In this case we assume that we are satisfied with

an adequate number of repetitions that support our primary argument more and

more…

Infinite regress

This is what we call an infinite regress. If P0 is our first proposition then it is true

if P1 is true, and P1 is true if P2 is true, and so on:

Pn+1 = Pn + I

step’ in the series.)

If the first proposition P0 stands as ‘truth’ (like the sentence ‘logic is true’), then

we will never end with a contradiction nor with an affirmation.

- Russell believed that all propositions of mathematics could be proved.

- Gödel showed that truths of a logical system are not provable within its

own premises.

So Gödel’s theorem has given an end to our ambition that there could be

any logical system complete, as Russell in his ‘Principia’ would have expected.

We cannot demonstrate truths, we just accept them. On the other hand, by

demonstration we cannot prove a truth.

- As Aristotle put it forward:

premises, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there

is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is

either true or a necessary deduction from the premises. The

first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other

than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is

involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no

primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior…

The other party agrees with them as regards knowing, holding

that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no

difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the

ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.

Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is

demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate

premises is independent of demonstration. Such, then, is our

doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific

knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to

recognize the definitions.

Aristotle therefore believed that we can simply prove a theory by its axioms. Still

the problem remains: How can we find the originative source of a logical

argument?

Infinite causal chains

Another name for infinite regression is an infinite causal chain. An infinite causal

chain has no beginning or end. We can use any means of logical deduction but we

can never reach an end or a first cause. Infinite causal chains are logically valid

but, let’s say, incomplete with regard to common experience.

There is a fast way to ‘escape’ from a causal chain. For example, if we ask how

the universe started we can simply reply that the universe has always existed. So a

‘previous state’ loses any meaning. This is an example of an infinite causal loop.

But here we have to face a problem: If a causal loop can explain its existence as

its own cause, then logical reasoning loses any sense. Because logic will have to

ask: ‘What is outside a causal loop?

- Richard Hanley has argued that causal loops are not impossible but their

only possibly objectionable feature they all share is that coincidence is required to

explain them.

Therefore ‘causal’ loops are in fact acausal.

Open Closed

Causal and infinite Acausal and spontaneous

Truths are demonstrable Truths are axiomatic

Effects need a cause to Effects are their own causes

explain them and vice versa

Time is an important Time is fundamentally an

property of nature illusion

God is an eternal question God is an internal question

Chance is explained with Chance is explained with

probabilities ‘meaningful’ coincidences

Classical determinism Quantum non-locality

Big Bang Model Steady State Universe

This is exactly the key point of the anthropic principle: A human point of view

about the world is always a point of view of the human mind. In the same way we

can rename this ‘human’ principle as ‘bee’ principle, ‘dolphin’ principle, or more

generally as the ‘cosmological’ principle, meaning the cosmological principle as

‘we’ know it.

2) A causal loop cannot exist.

3) A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

4) Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not

an effect) must exist.

1)

What caused the first cause?

argument that cannot even prove if our logic is reciprocal or even legitimate

concerning the ‘cosmos’. The quest of a first cause leads to infinite regress that

‘ends’ with an irrational and ‘miraculous’ breakthrough to a self- existent and

self- explaining causal loop which in turn can expand to an infinite series of

causal loops and so on…

There still remains an important question: Does nature ‘thinks’ the same way

humans do? Are all human problems also problems of nature? If humans are

‘nature’ then the obvious answer is yes. But this answer is still an answer of logic.

Could nature have a more sophisticated way of ‘thinking’ above human logic?

Still the previous question is a question of logic. And so on…

Infinity of infinities…

beginning or an end (an infinite causal chain).

B: ‘The universe has always existed.’ A spontaneous reply that explains

the origins of the previous question but defies demonstration (a non-

causal loop)

C: ‘The origin of the universe is acausal but the universe consists of

causal events.’ A thought unifying A and B.

D: ‘What is there outside the universe?’ The acausal loop breaks into an

infinite number of infinite causal chains. Birth of a new syllogism that

assumes the existence of a ‘multiverse.’

E: ‘What existed before the multiverse?’ Each infinite chain ‘bends’ to

find its origins. Many multiverses of spontaneous origin.

F: “What lies outside the set of all sets of multiverses?” The process

goes on for ever…

As we saw our logic works with an infinite regress procedure. We can stop it but

if we want to have a definite answer then we have to start again. We could admit

that logic is insufficient to understand the world but if we abandon logic then we

lose any ability of common sense. Is there a function within the limits of ‘mind’

that if found could lead us to a new way of thinking? Perhaps this question is just

another question of logic. But since so far our logic and our common sense have

proved worthy of understanding or at least having access to ‘incredible’ things

outside their realm, there is a question left: ‘Why do we understand?’ We may not

be able to reply but I guess we can keep our mind open to the possibility of

miracles.

- The Level of Analysis Problem. SingerUploaded bydianalr25
- Principle of AnalogyUploaded byChrisTselentis
- ResearchUploaded byRebecca Cummings
- Behavioral Based Safety Leadership & Root Cause Analysis, 19 - 23 February 2017 Dubai, UAEUploaded by360 BSI
- Lecture Notes Epidemiology and Public HealthUploaded byHamilton Grantham
- Does God Exist?Uploaded byFatima Zahra Charitable Association
- Faster Than the Speed of LightUploaded byChrisTselentis
- The Extended PresentUploaded byChrisTselentis
- The Origins of ThoughtUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Full TextUploaded byEugen Rădulescu
- rUploaded byapi-258292510
- Koslowski - Theory and Evidence. the Development of Scientific ReasoningUploaded byJohnnie Z. Drake
- pypexhibition2016-17Uploaded byapi-356697645
- Retro-vision: A New Aspect of Vision?Uploaded byChrisTselentis
- Theory of the FormUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Session 1 - 8. Gaid v PeopleUploaded byaudreyracela
- Panayides - Aristotle on Chance and Spontaneous Generation. a Discussion NoteUploaded byJohn Boyer
- Cede the Political StuffUploaded byPage
- Goals of Publi Policy Deborah StoneUploaded byAndy Ramtillack
- Ghazali's Concept of CausalityUploaded bygzaly
- The Ambiguity of LeadershipUploaded byPedro Melo
- [Shryane ____ slides] What is Latent Structure Analysis¿Uploaded byMarkAlexandre
- Problem Solving ToolsUploaded byBrady_tom
- Analytical Exposition Text Power PointUploaded byIna Giri
- A Model for Case AnalysisUploaded bymanojkumar
- Pornography Consumption and Satisfaction:A Meta-Analysis by Paul J.Wright et alUploaded byRoland Kristo
- Pathways of Institutional Change. an Integrative Review and Research AgendaUploaded byYiannis Mpets
- Amita Rahma_Corruption in Indonesia_Diponegoro UniversityUploaded byamita
- CausalityUploaded byhoogggleee
- (eBook)(Philosophy of Mind) Jerry a. Fodor - A Theory of Content and Other Essays-chap3Uploaded bySebastian Arevalo

- Σύσταση της ΔιάνοιαςUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Exploring the Irrational and the Paranoiac-critical Method of Salvador DaliUploaded byChrisTselentis
- The Extended PresentUploaded byChrisTselentis
- The Origins of ThoughtUploaded byChrisTselentis
- The 88 Modern ConstellationsUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Human Evolution: The process of humanizationUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Retro-vision: A New Aspect of Vision?Uploaded byChrisTselentis
- The Number and Its SymbolsUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Το επεκταμένο παρόνUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Rene Magritte: The man behind the hatUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Cultural Assimilation and the Problem of IEUploaded byChrisTselentis
- ΣΤΡΑΒΩΝ -ΤΟΠΟΝΥΜΙΑ-Toponyms-in-Strabo-s-Geography.pdfUploaded byathanasios N papadopoulos
- Τα αρχέτυπα του συλλογικού ασυνείδητουUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Theory of the FormUploaded byChrisTselentis
- The Minoans and the Royal PurpleUploaded byChrisTselentis
- The parkUploaded byChrisTselentis
- La dictée de la pensée, André BretonUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Από τη μίμηση στη δημιουργικότηταUploaded byChrisTselentis
- ΑΝΑΛΥΣΗ ΕΝΟΣ ΑΠΟΣΠΑΣΜΑΤΟΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ «DEMONSTRATION OF THE BEING AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD,» ΤΟΥ DR. SAMUEL CLARKEUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Anarchism (?)Uploaded byChrisTselentis
- Μια μιμητική θεωρία του αλτρουισμούUploaded byChrisTselentis
- ΤΟ ΠΡΟΒΛΗΜΑ ΜΕ ΤΑ ΜΙΜΙΔΙΑUploaded byChrisTselentis
- ΣΥΣΧΕΤΙΣΕΙΣ ΑΝΑΜΕΣΑ ΣΕ ΣΥΝΕΧΗ ΤΥΧΑΙΑ ΔΕΔΟΜΕΝΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΗΜΑΝΤΙΚΑ ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΓΕΓΟΝΟΤΑUploaded byChrisTselentis
- 9 Μαΐου Port LligatUploaded byChrisTselentis
- 1η Αυγούστου Port LligatUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Για το χρόνο, το χώρο και τη μουσικήUploaded byChrisTselentis
- August the 1st (Diary of a genius, Salvador Dali)Uploaded byChrisTselentis
- Η αίσθηση του να σε κοιτάνεUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Ο ΜΥΘΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΚΟΣΜΟΛΟΓΙΚΗΣ ΟΜΟΙΟΓΕΝΕΙΑΣUploaded byChrisTselentis
- Concerning Time, Space and MusicUploaded byChrisTselentis

- Rationality and GoodnessUploaded byAgustina Sforza
- PhiloUploaded byAngie Douglas
- Cult of Lord CaitanyaUploaded bymahaphala
- Harrell, Eben - Think You're Operating on Free Will, Think AgainUploaded byshastafir
- Andrey Maidansky, ed. - The Practical Essence of Man - The 'Activity Approach' in Late Soviet Philosophy.pdfUploaded byJedi_Rolle
- Facilitating LearningUploaded byRex Galang
- EXAM 2 Ch. 5, 6, 7, 9Uploaded byxcygon
- Fundamental Mathematics of ConsciousnessUploaded byYash
- Does nature have intrinsic value?Uploaded byColette Sciberras
- Stolorow Heidegger Mood and the Lived Body OnticalUploaded byNikolaos Kypriotakis
- Till Architecture and ContingencyUploaded byDiego Fagundes
- Jason & Skye Mangrum - Mind Power ManifestoUploaded byc108
- Critical ThinkingUploaded bytssa
- Educational Perennial IsmUploaded byJover Bernabe
- AC Ancient Commentators on Aristotle Gen. Ed. R. Sorabji (1987- 2012)Uploaded byishmailpwquod
- Deepest_sample.pdfUploaded byFerScribd28
- Empedokles 2Uploaded bybrysonru
- PovertyUploaded byArdelean Gheorghe Cornel
- Boethius - The Alfred-Maurice de ZayasUploaded bystaxtobouta
- 论衡Eng1Uploaded byEdmund_Ding
- Spiritual Solutions by Deepak Chopra - ExcerptUploaded byCrown Publishing Group
- Business Ethics- Practical Proposals for Organ is at IonsUploaded bybrotherjackk
- 6 1_after libertarianismUploaded byDaniel Acheampong
- Emersons MysticismUploaded byToddus Aurelius
- Christopher Bobonich-Plato's 'Laws'_ A Critical Guide (Cambridge Critical Guides)-Cambridge University Press (2010)(1) copy.pdfUploaded byRey Daniel Colón
- Argumentative EssayUploaded byPatrick
- Al Gore, Global Warming, and MythologyUploaded bymscluff
- ideo logyUploaded byanon-392616
- Coordinated Management of MeaningUploaded bychrisprathama
- BMS SummaryUploaded byNika Japaridze