It seems to me that if a logical paradox demonstrably exists in reality, than logic, logically, cannot be a valid way to analyze reality. I think time may be such a phenomenon (if you can even call it that).
The paradox arises thusly: if I promise to give you a hamburger after infinite time, that is equivalent to saying I will never give you a hamburger. Similarly, saying that time stretches infinitely into the past is nonsensical, because that would place us at the end of an already infinite series of events, the end of which, by definition, cannot exist.
Such would seem to demand that time had a beginning. However, beginnings happen in time. That is part of the definition of a beginning. That time began meant that at one moment, there was no time, and the next moment, there was. Except there could be no moment where there was no time, because moments are a part of time.
It's difficult to get quite the right words for this, but do y'all get what I'm saying? If one of the fundamentals by which we experience violates logic, then thinking of the world logically will lead to fallacies.
If time could be objectively viewed time would just be a thing like heighth width and depth. It wouldn't have a begining, it would simply be a condition of the state of things.
Anyways i'm kind of confused on logic. Fallacies are bad logic, so if thinking logically is bad logic, there is an inherant self contradiction in logic, but self contradiction can only be established by using logic. So it must be said that logic is a given. But are givens logical?-- it's like a paradox but not I think. I dunno, my head's gonna explode.
banned:If time could be objectively viewed time would just be a thing like heighth width and depth. It wouldn't have a begining, it would simply be a condition of the state of things.
I dunno. Some people say that, but I don't think we really perceive time as a dimension. It seems very different than space. If we cannot view time objectively, does that mean that maybe there is no objective meaning to time? But if there is no objective meaning to time, than there can be no objectivity to anything that happens within time. Er...
banned:Anyways i'm kind of confused on logic. Fallacies are bad logic, so if thinking logically is bad logic, there is an inherant self contradiction in logic, but self contradiction can only be established by using logic. So it must be said that logic is a given. But are givens logical?-- it's like a paradox but not I think. I dunno, my head's gonna explode.
It a head splodey kind of thing. However, logic can be used to analyze logic in relation to reality, just not reality itself, if in reality logical paradoxes exist.
Really? Does noone else have the gonadal fortitude to take this issue on? Come on, people. Banned at least put his toes in, and he's Banned!
JCFolsom: Really? Does noone else have the gonadal fortitude to take this issue on? Come on, people. Banned at least put his toes in, and he's Banned!
Take what issue on? I think it's a non-issue only made to appear to be a serious issue by confusion. If you're interested, email me for a copy of Roderick Long's ""Future Truth and Leibniz’s Law: An Aristotelean Sea Battle in a Heracleitean River." It might help clear things up for you.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
We say "time began" for lack of a better term, that all.
Logic implies time. Causation implies a period over which something is caused, a state before a change and after.
I would also note that logic is the only method for analyzing reality.
It'd be impossible to even formulate an argument abandoning logic, as it'd entail rejecting the law of noncontradiction, hence one would both argue and not argue that logic ought to be abandoned.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
R.J. Moore II: Logic implies time. Causation implies a period over which something is caused, a state before a change and after. I would also note that logic is the only method for analyzing reality.
That is a false statement. I can think of mystical and hedonistic ways of analyzing reality right off the top of my head. You might say it is the only correct way of analyzing reality, but that is what is in question.
JCFolsom: R.J. Moore II: Logic implies time. Causation implies a period over which something is caused, a state before a change and after. I would also note that logic is the only method for analyzing reality. That is a false statement. I can think of mystical and hedonistic ways of analyzing reality right off the top of my head. You might say it is the only correct way of analyzing reality, but that is what is in question.
Or you could say they're not analyzing reality. Depends on how you define your terms.
I'd also recommending several other works by Roderick Long:
"Anti-Psychologism in Economics: Wittgenstein and Mises"
Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action
But what is everybody's answer to the paradox posted?
Has time existed always, Infinitely into the past? Making it impossible to arrive at now.
Or did time have a start, meaning the beginning of time needed an action that existed before time? things can't start or stop without action.
I personally don't think there is proper understanding of time, making any such logic based on false assumptions.
javier: But what is everybody's answer to the paradox posted?
There is no paradox
javier: Has time existed always, Infinitely into the past? Making it impossible to arrive at now.
Time always existing doesn't make it impossible to arrive at now any more than, say, space extending to infinity all around you makes it impossible to be where you are.
javier: Or did time have a start, meaning the beginning of time needed an action that existed before time? things can't start or stop without action.
How long is a piece of string? Where's the beginning of a circle?
JCFolsom:The paradox arises thusly: if I promise to give you a hamburger after infinite time, that is equivalent to saying I will never give you a hamburger. Similarly, saying that time stretches infinitely into the past is nonsensical, because that would place us at the end of an already infinite series of events, the end of which, by definition, cannot exist.
If by some crazy twist of fate you were standing on the inside edge of a huge circle would the fact that there was no perceivable end or beginning invalidate the existence of the circle?
The fact that we chose to call a concept 'time' that we as a species are incapable of fully perceiving doesn't in any way change whether it exists or has a beginning or end. All we can really do is to observe the effects of this phenomena and base our system of understanding of the natural world on this understanding.
JCFolsom:Such would seem to demand that time had a beginning. However, beginnings happen in time. That is part of the definition of a beginning. That time began meant that at one moment, there was no time, and the next moment, there was. Except there could be no moment where there was no time, because moments are a part of time.
All that is really required is for your perception of 'time' to have a beginning and end for you to use it as a tool to understand the world around you.
A system of logic based on the limited portion of this 'time' that humans have collectively observed could indeed be incorrect but then again it seems to do the job pretty well. It is quite possible that 'time' is an entirely made up concept that doesn't even exist if there is nothing to observe it like the old 'tree in the forest' question.
I wouldn't base any arguments on this 'time' invalidating logic theory you have concocted though. To be quite honest I can't prove that 'you' exist beyond a reasonable doubt and are not either a figment of my imagination or part of some governmental mind control experiment. If I were to base my arguments on this lack of proof then I'd start sounding like fsk who is convinced I'm some sort of 'establishment' astroturfer because I don't accept the validity of his fallacious pet theories. Yeah, don't be that guy.
Paul:How long is a piece of string? Where's the beginning of a circle?
As long as the string is? Um...
Are you then taking the Eastern view of time as a circle? If not, at the leading edge of the circle, pretty much from whatever direction you're facing it. Poor analogies both. Try again.
Anonymous Coward:If by some crazy twist of fate you were standing on the inside edge of a huge circle would the fact that there was no perceivable end or beginning invalidate the existence of the circle?
So, are you taking a literally cyclic view of time.
Anonymous Coward:I wouldn't base any arguments on this 'time' invalidating logic theory you have concocted though. To be quite honest I can't prove that 'you' exist beyond a reasonable doubt and are not either a figment of my imagination or part of some governmental mind control experiment.
Another argument against logic. If logic cannot establish even the existence of other beings, it really isn't a great tool for analyzing reality. Taking that first step to believing other beings are more than illusions requires an analysis of reality from (most likely) a hedonistic perspective; basically, living with constant doubt that anything else exists would suck. Plus, we know the world and other people exist, we just can't prove it.
JCFolsom:Another argument against logic. If logic cannot establish even the existence of other beings, it really isn't a great tool for analyzing reality. Taking that first step to believing other beings are more than illusions requires an analysis of reality from (most likely) a hedonistic perspective; basically, living with constant doubt that anything else exists would suck. Plus, we know the world and other people exist, we just can't prove it.
We do indeed know that the world and other people (and all other facets of reality) exist. It is not a matter of proof. That would be using the concept of "proof" in an inappropriate context. Its like saying that you can't prove 2+2=4.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
JCFolsom: Anonymous Coward:I wouldn't base any arguments on this 'time' invalidating logic theory you have concocted though. To be quite honest I can't prove that 'you' exist beyond a reasonable doubt and are not either a figment of my imagination or part of some governmental mind control experiment. Another argument against logic. If logic cannot establish even the existence of other beings, it really isn't a great tool for analyzing reality. Taking that first step to believing other beings are more than illusions requires an analysis of reality from (most likely) a hedonistic perspective; basically, living with constant doubt that anything else exists would suck. Plus, we know the world and other people exist, we just can't prove it.
Well, such Cartesian or solipsistic views are groundless. Application of logic to reality rules them out. From what we know of reality, for example, we know that the existence of language and culture require many rational beings. The radical doubt of Descartes and the phenomenological reductions of Husserl are, at the most fundamental level, dependent on the truth of the very thing they attempt to doubt. Logical analysis shows us why these projects are ultimately unnecessary and doomed to failure. While it makes no sense to hold a generally Cartesian or solipsistic view, it can make sense to doubt the existence of a particular person or thing or image (say, something that turns out to be a mirage). It might even turn out we're in the Matrix, but there would still have to be some fundamental underlying reality within which the Matrix exists, including some intelligent being or beings to have created and put us in it. Believing that we are in the Matrix, however, cannot be the default position. It requires extraordinary evidence to even be considered as a plausible hypothesis.
See, for example, Karl Schulmann and Barry Smith's "Against Idealism: Johanes Daubert vs. Husserl's Ideas I," though I warn you it is very technical.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:From what we know of reality, for example, we know that the existence of language and culture require many rational beings.
You only conclude that from the evidence of your senses, the very validity of which is what is in question.
As for very technical papers, I am rather too lazy, and in any case, I tend towards the position that truth is simple and elegant. Convoluted, pedantic logic is only really good for hiding its own flaws so deep even other experts can't figure it out, creating a layer of jargon such that the simpler, more honest logic of laymen can be derided as childish. It's an artificial barrier to real discussion, which is precisely why experts like it.
JCFolsom: Geoffrey Allan Plauche:From what we know of reality, for example, we know that the existence of language and culture require many rational beings. You only conclude that from the evidence of your senses, the very validity of which is what is in question.
No. Not only.
JCFolsom:As for very technical papers, I am rather too lazy, and in any case, I tend towards the position that truth is simple and elegant. Convoluted, pedantic logic is only really good for hiding its own flaws so deep even other experts can't figure it out, creating a layer of jargon such that the simpler, more honest logic of laymen can be derided as childish. It's an artificial barrier to real discussion, which is precisely why experts like it.
It's not technical in that sense. I'm not talking about philosophers like Kant here. They are not needlessly obscure or really bad writers. There is some ancient Greek, for example. Quotations from Daubert are translated from the German. And when dealing with philospphical errors it is sometimes necessary to make careful distinctions to unravel them. Truth often simple and elegant (but not always in the sense of being parsimonious) until someone unnecessarily complicates things and gets it wrong, then those who come after are left with a mess to clean up. I would have thought from the context you would realize that they are defending the commonsense view of reality against unnecessary and mistaken complications like idealism. If you're really serious about the questions you posed to start this thread, I don't see why you wouldn't read the paper as well as the other things I've suggested. If you're not serious, then why start the thread? I'm not interested in shallow debates intended only to sow doubt.
JCFolsom: Anonymous Coward:If by some crazy twist of fate you were standing on the inside edge of a huge circle would the fact that there was no perceivable end or beginning invalidate the existence of the circle? So, are you taking a literally cyclic view of time.
No. I'm taking a literally cyclic view of circles and you are dodging the question.
Anonymous Coward:No. I'm taking a literally cyclic view of circles and you are dodging the question.
I'm not dodging anything. I just don't see how your example actually applies to the situation.
JCFolsom:I'm not dodging anything. I just don't see how your example actually applies to the situation.
Well, I guess you're on your own then.
Go read about polylogism in the links...that stuff gives me a headache.
1. Read "Atheism: The Case Against God" for a great primer on metaphysics and epistemology.
2. All arguments imply logic. Logic is not arbitrary rules. It is necessary facts. To argue against logic is self-defeating, to say that other methods of 'knowledge' exist or can be imagined outside of knowledge first requires logic for its justification, irrational ways of 'knowledge' which disregard logic have, by abandoning non-contradiction, lost the ability to make any sort of 'true' or 'false 'statement. Logic can not be 'justified' externally, existence and logic are prerequisites of one another. The search for 'why' certain things are apodictically true ultimately runs into the fact of existence. To contradict logic is to make statements with no meaning.
3. Nothing can or could be imagined to exist before the Universe or outside of it. One can not talk about 'before' the Universe yet one not need to posit infinite age. Age, time and causality are properties of existence within the Universe. As some scientists have observed, without discrete entities and time (within a black hole) it is meaningless to speak of any event. While their ideas about whether this is caused in a black hole are empirical and experimental, their conclusions are absolute.
4. Considering this non-controversial to my satisfaction, I shall retire from this debate.
Another argument against logic. If logic cannot establish even the existence of other beings, it really isn't a great tool for analyzing reality.
Well, since we're dealing in arguments against logic, is it both the case and both not the case that that is an argument against logic? No? Otherwise, you are using logic and your entire case collapses into absurdity. Logic consists in the law of noncontradiction, the law of identity and arguably the law of the excluded middle. Not being able to prove another's existence isn't a failing of logic. Not being able to explain time adequately isn't either. All it shows is epistemological limitations. To say that it invalidates logic (logically?) is a non sequitur, and ends up demolishing your own argument.
As for very technical papers, I am rather too lazy, and in any case, I tend towards the position that truth is simple and elegant.
If you're going to delve into philosophical matters, make sure you're willing to do the necessary work. As Geoffrey said, the above may be true, but it's often difficult to unravel the truth from the mess that modern philosophy has left it in.
Jon Irenicus:Well, since we're dealing in arguments against logic, is it both the case and both not the case that that is an argument against logic? No? Otherwise, you are using logic and your entire case collapses into absurdity. Logic consists in the law of noncontradiction, the law of identity and arguably the law of the excluded middle. Not being able to prove another's existence isn't a failing of logic. Not being able to explain time adequately isn't either. All it shows is epistemological limitations. To say that it invalidates logic (logically?) is a non sequitur, and ends up demolishing your own argument.
Logic can be internally consistent without corresponding to the rest of reality. Thus, logic could be used to show that logic is inapplicable to anything but itself, while still being applicable to itself.
So...
and both not-
Jon Irenicus: So... Logic can be internally consistent without corresponding to the rest of reality. Thus, logic could be used to show that logic is inapplicable to anything but itself, while still being applicable to itself. and both not-Logic can be internally consistent without corresponding to the rest of reality. Thus, logic could be used to show that logic is inapplicable to anything but itself, while still being applicable to itself. can simultaneously be true? This is applying logic to reality, and demonstrating what'd happen if you abandoned it, to very 'real' arguments.
I don't get it.
I'm demonstrating to you the practical consequence of an argument calling for the abandonment of logic. I don't know what you think logic is, but it consists in the three laws I named earlier. If you say we should abandon it on account of perceived anomalies, it means the argument entailing this cannot even get off the ground without being reduced to meaninglessness. If logic is inapplicable to anything but itself, the law of noncontradiction is voided, meaning things can both be and not be, like what you said above.
Jon Irenicus: I'm demonstrating to you the practical consequence of an argument calling for the abandonment of logic. I don't know what you think logic is, but it consists in the three laws I named earlier. If you say we should abandon it on account of perceived anomalies, it means the argument entailing this cannot even get off the ground without being reduced to meaninglessness. If logic is inapplicable to anything but itself, the law of noncontradiction is voided, meaning things can both be and not be, like what you said above.
Eddy Eddy Eddy... ahem!
OK, so, but your example would mean that logic is invalid self-referentially. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is:
1. Time could not go back infinitely, so it must have had a beginning.
2. Time could not begin, so it must go back infinitely.
Thus, logic is inapplicable to time. You have here a dual must but cannot be inherent.
Time is essential, a truly basic component, to our perceptions of the universe. Thus, applying logic to our perceptions of the universe, when we know that a basic part of those perceptions is illogical, is illogical.
Now, I'm not proposing that we actually do away with logic entirely. I'm just saying that maybe it isn't the all-encompassing super mack l33t p1mp for understanding everything it's made out to be. No offense to our Vulcan cohort.
That still makes no sense. To say logic does not apply to it, for instance, implies the law of noncontradiction does not apply to it. But it does, otherwise any statement regarding time will reduce to nonsense. There's no way around it. You're dealing with an epistemological problem, not a logical one.
Jon Irenicus:To say logic does not apply to it, for instance, implies the law of noncontradiction does not apply to it. But it does, otherwise any statement regarding time will reduce to nonsense.
Not every statement, just those that try to do an in-depth analysis of it logically. Logic does not allow us to classify something as logical because it's convenient; that's a hedonistic move. We want to be able to talk about and analyze time, just like we want to for everything else. Humans don't like not knowing things. We tend to accept the most ridiculous theories rather than accept that we don't know, or maybe even can't know, at least not with the lovely, reliable tools of reason. It's mostly a fear of the dark, I think.
Think through the implications of what you're saying. To analyze something via logic, one will typically be applying a number of rules, e.g. inferences from true premises will be truth-preserving, either P or not-P will be true, but not both P and not-P and so on. To say you're abandoning the use of logic in any given analysis, means you're abandoning these rules, so for example you'll end up with analyses stating both P and not-P. But that isn't an analysis. It's sheer nonsense. That's why you can't categorize this as non-logical.
Jon Irenicus:Think through the implications of what you're saying. To analyze something via logic, one will typically be applying a number of rules, e.g. inferences from true premises will be truth-preserving, either P or not-P will be true, but not both P and not-P and so on. To say you're abandoning the use of logic in any given analysis, means you're abandoning these rules, so for example you'll end up with analyses stating both P and not-P. But that isn't an analysis. It's sheer nonsense. That's why you can't categorize this as non-logical.
You can, but what it means is that you should not try to apply logic to time to that level, because logic does not apply. It literally means you shouln't even try. Thus, you avoid the nonsense. Time exists, yet is not open to logical analysis to that level. So, don't. You'll be making a mistake. And, realize that because of that, logical conclusions, however certain they might seem, always have an element of doubt, because logic can only actually analyze an ideal version of reality, not reality as it actually exists. It can be very close in some ways, so it's not fruitless, but there will always be an element of doubt.
I think you need to re-read my post. You cannot exclude any analysis from being subject to logic, for it to remain coherent and sensible. I'm not sure what you think logic is, but properly conceived it's a tool, without which nothing can be analyzed.
JCFolsom:if I promise to give you a hamburger after infinite time, that is equivalent to saying I will never give you a hamburger. Similarly, saying that time stretches infinitely into the past is nonsensical, because that would place us at the end of an already infinite series of events, the end of which, by definition, cannot exist.
The end exists. It's the beginning of the series of events that lead to our point in time that cannot exist. There is no paradox here, just an equivocation.