Where Does Logic Come From? ​⁠

[@pedestrian_0]

Logic comes from Maryland he's rapped about it in his songs, he likes to rep it

[@user-of8gd2ix5i]

Lmfao

[@DanielBro42]

bro I had the exact same joke lol

[@kyoshiro4042]

and he's also biracial

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

All Humans need to repent & Believe in Jesus as their God. Why? Because all Humans have sinned (lied, lusted sexually, stolen, dishonoured parents, unbelief etc). Avoid the fires of Hell (justice of God) and choose Heaven today. Jesus defeated death by rising from the dead. GOD IS HOLY

[@elartedepararte]

Something can be possible and illogical at the same time. For example a mustache

[@Hayden-cd4gk]

👨👨

[@Home-o2v4h]

No

[@elartedepararte]

@@Home-o2v4h then how do you explain his mustache?

[@frogandspanner]

Everybody has a go at growing a moustache at some point in their life; my wife left it late.

[@planteruines5619]

@@elartedeparartemoustache is an identity, therefore it is logically possible to exist

[@jacobfilby]

Alex has a mustache Alex does not have a mustache Therefore: What the hell was Alex thinking when he grew that mustache?

[@parlamedia]

Alex is not bound by the laws of logic

[@SixOhFive]

Or is it Alex had a mustache Alex has a mustache and you are aware of them both existing

[@bramburgers1417]

What a great logical valid argument!!!

[@juntus89]

That's not an argument. The conclusion isn't a question - it must be an assertoric proposition.

[@rortys.kierkegaard9980]

I agree… that both are illogical

[@benl8962]

Im absolutely loving these conversations, keep uploading them! Watched Alex years ago when i started my atheistic journey. And found unsolicited advice only recently, to hear these discussions is absolutely wonderful!

[@mikemcg2828]

Very similar to the question of whether math is created or discovered

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

not really

[@DekemaStokes]

Yes really

[@matswessling6600]

@@mikemcg2828 yes. its exactly the same answer: math and logic is how our cognitive system looks from the inside.

[@grayhalf1854]

Was literally watching a video on KZbin on that very topic before this one (NdGT)

[@glenncurry3041]

And the Laws of Physics.

[@mrman5066]

I'm a civil engineering student which is about as utilitarian as it gets admittedly, but the cool philosophy class I'm taking now and this video makes me wanna minor in philosophy that'd be cool. I'm an aspiring Catholic and yet I find both of your channels so appealing and have been watching you both before your collab haha

[@mobili2]

Go for it, man. I may be biased as I'm a Phil PhD candidate, but one thing I feel people should consider more often is to experience and learn stuff without further applications, just for the sake of curiosity or understanding as knowledge can be an end in itself.

[@mrman5066]

@@mobili2 Yeah! And even if you wanted to find some use out of it one could argue becoming a more intellectually hardened person allows for acting better in any circumstance which could help anyone be better at any career. Being a civil engineering student, I'm fascinated by cities and how they are designed and developed, which makes me think about social philosophy often.

[@Brad-qw1te]

“As an aspiring catholic” No offense but you can easily debunk all abrahamic religions by simple historical analysis. Don’t waste your time with that crap

[@mrman5066]

@@Brad-qw1te oookay wanna go ahead and do that?

[@steveurquell3031]

​@@mrman5066 I'm atheist (of the agnostic flavor -- i.e. I really don't know whether God exists or not and feel it is impossible to say) but don't listen to that dude. I wish you success in that endeavor and a good life my friend

[@鏡花水月-y4i]

Logic is true because if logic is false, then logic is true.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

What is truth?

[@jamesbeesley2767]

@@keitumetsemodipa3012is that a religious or a logical question?

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

@@jamesbeesley2767 It's a philosophical question a metaphysical one to be specific

[@鏡花水月-y4i]

@keitumetsemodipa3012 Truth is whatever makes you achieve the goal. @keitumetsemodipa3012 Earth is flat when you try to draw a map of your town. Earth is round when you try to draw a map of the world. General Relativity is true when you try to launch a satellite. General relativity is false when you try to figure out what happens inside a black hole.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

@@鏡花水月-y4i I'm sorry what? Perhaps rephrasing might help me understand I'm genuinely confused by what you said

[@mhakoyyy]

Logic can know if that moustache is about to go or not.

[@Guy-iv2hw]

Physicist here. The laws of logic come from the definition. Happy to help.

[@eetuaalto7214]

This is why the distinction between signifier and signified is important! :D

[@madzmidz]

Must it?

[@ichthyostegaxd3727]

And where do you get the definition from?

[@dannydewario1550]

And where does the definition come from?

[@Guy-iv2hw]

@@ichthyostegaxd3727 I can explain it, but maybe I'll ask a question first, because I'm curious to know what will happen. When you see a traffic light which has 3 logical states (and by the way 1 superposition and sometimes an indefinite state), do you start to wonder "oh my god, where did that come from? The world is so mysterious." or not?

[@goblinlordx6108]

I have some specific thoughts regarding this. Specifically, I think it originated from being able to interpret inputs. When an input received a signal, in order to have any kind of perception there must be a change from one point in time and another. At this point, there would be both A and A' (observation at T1) and B and B' (observation at T2). If these is no distinction between A and B, there can be nothing perceived. So given this, in order to have perception, we must have the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity. I think the law of excluded middle is just because when we label things we generally do so in a form of sets. Where A is a subset or identical to B or the inverse, they fit the law of excluded middle. This is where A and B are the labels for some sets.

[@jsmall10671]

Maybe. But you seem to be excluding a possible "quantum" perception where some living thing might be able to perceive superposition.

[@goblinlordx6108]

@jsmall10671 until there is actual evidence of such a thing, sure. Either way, if there is no change between T1 and T2, there would be no perception of anything. That doesn't change if something is in a superposition or not.

[@indiemagnet]

I like your idea. So then logic is not a fundamental law of reality itself but as self-organizing patterns of information processing arise out of whatever the soupy fuzzy fundamental reality is, it overlays a perception of distinctness over top of entropy (the simple reality that it is more probable for an information state to exist in any of a number than one particular) Look up a pbs spacetime episode called “the brains role in creating spacetime” it talks about a perceptual system that kinda overlays reality “at the joints”. So you’re saying is that what we perceive as distinct objects might arise from a perception of change or if time is an emergent overlay the reality of informational entropy. I’m thinking perhaps there’s an underlying entanglement geometry that is beneath time and time arises as a perception as you navigate probability/potentiality space.

[@NateROCKS112]

5:57 it might be worth noting that, in formal logic, this idea requires _completeness_ of your logic. A logic is said to be complete if, whenever every interpretation that satisfies the premises also satisfies the conclusion, the same can be said for a syntactic derivation (i.e. proofs that are just string manipulation). The converse of this statement is called soundness: that every syntactic derivation is also semantically valid. Kurt Gödel was the first to show completeness of classical first-order logic, which is used in modern mathematics today. The principle of explosion can be expressed both semantically and syntactically; you gave the semantic argument, while the syntactic argument (in classical prop. logic) goes something like: 1. P and not P 2. P (by 1) 3. not P (by 1) 4. P or A (by 2, disjunction intro.) 5. A (by 3 and 4, disjunction elim.)

[@badabing3391]

feel like youd add an extra line "not P or A" and then come to the final conclusion but its probably redundant, idrk though

[@NateROCKS112]

@@badabing3391 one of the rules of inference in propositional logic is "P or A, not P |- A"

[@loudmmind]

as a philosopher of logic, i’m rarely forced to feel the discomfort of listening to non experts discuss my area of expertise! but it was a good effort, and not all bad.

[@mlokosss]

could you share your take on the origins of logic?

[@loudmmind]

@@mlokosss sure! I'll try to be brief. First, there is a bit of a problem with the question from the start, since from Aristotle up until the 20th century, 'logic' meant something very different from what it means today. The old way of thinking about logic was that it was a formal set of rules for good reasoning (e.g., the syllogisms), and nowadays logic is better understood like any scientific theory, i.e., a logical theory purports to describe something, namely the conditions under which relations of validity and entailment hold for sets of propositions. The old way of thinking about logic makes for an interesting question about why we hold some rather than other logical rules as the standard for good reasoning. This mirrors other deep questions about value we find in places like metaethics, e.g., why we think some things are wrong, and we find the same kinds of views: various kinds of realism and anti-realism. I'm more of an anti-realist (i.e., there are no objective, mind-independent facts which ground our values), but I'm not a conventionalist (i.e., we have certain logical laws as a standard of good reasoning arbitrarily given our culture/history). The view I prefer and argue for in my work is called constitutivism. There is a super short wiki article on constitutivism, and another primer for learning about this kind of view can be found on the SEP article for constructivism in metaethics. So, my view is constitutivism applied to logic. Basically, the origins of logic are bound up in what it means for humans to engage in anything we call thinking. Logic doesn't describe how we think (we actually tend to be really bad at deductive reasoning), but rather the laws of logic are a constitutive standard for how we ought to think. The contemporary view of logic makes the origin question kind of trivial, since the origin of any given logical theory is the product of some human activity. We can complicate this answer by asking whether there is one logical theory in particular among the many that is correct in some important sense. Now we are in the territory of standard metaphysics for abstracta like numbers, and the standard views can be found: again, various forms of realism and anti-realism. I don't find this area of research particularly interesting myself, but my preferred view is again anti-realist, but with respect to our contemporary understanding of logic, I tend to be quite extreme, thinking that logical relativism or pluralism is the only view that makes sense. See for instance Gillian Russell's excellent paper on what she calls `logical nihilism'.

[@c558]

@@loudmmind Bravo

[@paulalbertlanglois]

@@loudmmind Smartest youtube comment ever

[@OfficialTommyEch]

@@loudmmind May I ask, what is your take on logic in physics? Not science. Physics.

[@SixOhFive]

Logic comes from observation, it is the ultimate hypothesis basically.

[@amAntidisestablishmentarianist]

That's how it comes. Why does it work?

[@SixOhFive]

@@amAntidisestablishmentarianist because we have senses

[@ywtcc]

If everyone decided that T was F and F was T, or that AND was NOT and NOT was AND, Then logic would continue to work just fine! Ultimately, logic is a kind of protocol which is required to communicate. The laws were established when we agreed that T meant T, and F meant F, and that we should be consistent with our statements.

[@sinx2247]

I think you mean AND and OR. If you have quantifiers, you also have to swap "for all" and "there exists" as well.

[@ywtcc]

@@sinx2247 You can swap AND with a picture of a banana, and logic still makes sense. As long as you're consistent, and we established common meaning beforehand.

[@naijagoatfarmer]

@ywtcc Well, well now. That seems logical. I'll go with that.

[@naijagoatfarmer]

@sinx2247 That's it. Keep the FUD going. Good game, Good game.

[@sinx2247]

@@naijagoatfarmer what are you on about bruh😭

[@theatheistpaladin]

Can anything that exists have contradictory properties? If the answer is no, then logic is a natural consequence. If yes, then anything could be true and reason is impotent. Anything that could exist must cohere. Anything that is incoherent is the same as not existing.

[@Jackson_Zheng]

Or you might be committing a false dichotomy because you simply lack the information to explain otherwise. Like there might be a third case where all these problems are resolved.

[@theatheistpaladin]

@@Jackson_Zheng if you understood what you are saying is that there can be square-circles and there not be self defeating "anything could be true." Sorry, but no. That is a contradiction inside another contradiction. All you done is reinforce the true dichotomy.

[@badabing3391]

i mean people can believe contradictory things, and act on them, so kinda? What would an object with contradictory properties actually entail? Why couldnt I just refactor my model of reality to include that contradiction such that my new model isnt contradictory? We ultimately have to describe something as contradictory or not after all, so this is fundamentally tied to our ability to describe things.

[@horsymandias-ur]

I can imagine a surface in my mind that is red and green all over at the same time.

[@theatheistpaladin]

@@horsymandias-ur Yes, you "imagine" even though I doubt you actually are but least just say you are. So what? Does that exist in reality?

[@DiziCone]

Bro’s doing philosophical side quests at this point

[@monkerud2108]

Logic is just statements of destinction and implications that are reliable and consistent. Like the rules of chess veing the same tomorrow as today if you act them out. But there is a question of where the practice of logic comes from and what generates the activity and definitions there in practice, since this is the only kind of logic we ever encounter. And the answer is the physical world or the world that exists, it cannot "come" from somewhere else, and so the degree to which our logic is sound, or applicable or self consistent is a question about what happens in the world when we invent or use, or appeal to logic. And since we are asking this question from within this physics or whateverelsical existence, we cannot ever close that circle formally. Logic is an uncontrolled and unsupervised reasoning process we don't audit as we go, giving rise to sharp destinctions and rules we attempt to follow and to formalize in a constant way. So the question of what is logic as we encounter it is a question a question existence and the form of existence, good luck closing that circle it is impossibru to give a definite answer.

[@BreezeTalk]

Please recommend more British people who are smart like these two.

[@chuckgaydos5387]

My justification for using logic is that I don't know how to do otherwise. I can't know that it will always work in future but since it's always worked in the past, I have no idea how to prepare for its possible failure.

[@calibribody6776]

I mean practically that is the same with the Cogito. It is of course possible that our senses are deceiving us and the world doesn't really exist. Maybe we do live in a simulation. But there's not really a point to act as if it isn't. Because if our senses are deceiving us, there is no way in which we can ever know for sure either way. In the same way that if logic truly doesn't work, then it might be the case that we have no way of ever truly knowing if it works or not.

[@catholicguy3605]

An illogical justification for using logic... Brilliant

[@Brenden-H]

@@catholicguy3605 well what kind of logic would justify logic without being circular? you need something outside of logic to justify it probably, but we have no non logical justification tools

[@catholicguy3605]

@@Brenden-H God justifies logic.

[@Brenden-H]

​@@catholicguy3605 no because what justifies God? God is self-justifying? How do you know logic isn't self-justifying by its nature? i.e.: If logic is false, then logic is true. And if logic is true then it has to remain true by logic of self-consistency (i.e. X = X). You can't just make up a solution with 0 evidence that only pushes the questions back to a layer were historically you'd be killed for asking questions further. God as you know him doesn't exist for many reasons.

[@kazisiddiqui6435]

Logics are abstract generalizations of physical laws that help us map out scientific theories. They are analogous to map projections.

[@chinchao]

Math is a part of physical rules also.

[@farzad228]

​@@chinchao Then do you find anything in the physical world that corresponds or resemble peano axioms?

[@shassett79]

My intuition is that logical laws are like physical laws in that they're both just descriptions of reality that are sufficiently ubiquitous, in our experience, to seem inviolate. Gauss's Law wasn't prescribed; it's just a description of how magnetic flux seems to work whenever we look at it. Noncontradiction wasn't prescribed; it's just a reflection on the reality that nobody ever sees A and not-A concurrently in the same context.

[@Knightfall21]

So the laws of logic live in an immaterial realty?

[@shassett79]

@@Knightfall21 Not sure what you mean by "living in an immaterial reality." Is that the same as being an abstraction?

[@Knightfall21]

@@shassett79 I mean, what is the essence of logic and what domain does it exist in? If you think it's an abstraction, what is it an abstraction of?

[@shassett79]

@@Knightfall21 I don't follow. When I refer to things as "abstract" what I mean to say is that they only exist metaphysically.

[@Knightfall21]

@@shassett79 Ok, let's try another tact. Is logic real? Does it have descriptive or predictive power?

[@JoeKrak220]

Celebrating the grounding of Spiritual truths is where the depths of humility and wisdom meet the heights of pride and ignorance.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@ericb9804]

This question, like all silly metaphysical questions, only makes sense if you first assume that humans use language to "correspond to the world." Without that assumption, you realize that someone who asks this question is betraying their lack of understanding of their own assumptions.

[@cirqueyeagerist5641]

But for asking this question you are using human language itself

[@SelbyClaude]

Well, humans do use some language (propositional language, that is) to “correspond to the world”. Even better: humans use THOUGHT to do so, and then language is just a tool to communicate it. Which is to say: Wittgenstein was an idiot, like OMG how stupid his pseudo-philosophy was!

[@Michael-k8w7q]

​@cirqueyeagerist5641 You can easily use language to critique using language for searching correspondent truths, if you use the same language just because it's useful. So you critique the way of using language, but not using language itself.

[@cirqueyeagerist5641]

@@Michael-k8w7q your argument assumes that because you're using language to critique language, you can't critique language itself only its use. However, this is flawed because language is not just a neutral tool , it influences how we think and understand truth. By using language to critique its limitations, you're not contradicting yourself , just as you can use reasoning to critique flawed reasoning. Language can have structural biases or limitations, and recognizing those doesn’t invalidate the critique, even if you use language to express it.

[@Michael-k8w7q]

​​​@@cirqueyeagerist5641Talking about language's limitations is actually one of the ways to critique its using for some purposes, so there is no contradiction between mine words and your.

[@Cheximus]

That's what I needed in my life - More Alex O'Connor..! /s

[@IndustrialMilitia]

Logic is simply a mathematical structure. It is not prior to mathematics in any form. A better question is where does mathematics come from. Brouwer's philosophy of intuitionism is probably the most coherent answer to that question, independently of whether you endorse his rejection of excluded middle.

[@Léon-x3c]

I’d say both logic and mathematics are a byproducts of our universe’s tendency to obey cause and effect. We can only math we’re fairly sure incrementing an integer by one always results in the following integer.

[@TheBigWazowski]

I think you’re missing the forest for the trees a little bit. There are lowercase ‘L’ logics, like the classical and non-classical, that you could call mathematical structures. Then there is capital ‘L’, Logic, which is an umbrella term encompassing our meta conversation about logics. Where Logic comes from is more of a question of why is our world coherently structured. Because if you have some kind of coherent structure, tautologically, there will exist some “logic” that describes it. Brower’s intuitionism just begs the question of why are minds even capable of constructing any logics

[@IndustrialMilitia]

@@TheBigWazowski I think you're just equivocating. There are mathematical structures which are logics and then there is our imposition of these mathematical structures onto the world. All of a sudden, validity becomes this normative thing, rather than a purely mathematical definition. But a valid argument has no actual relationship to the world. A valid instance of modus ponens does not cause anything to be the case. It's merely a description of the form of the argument. Logic bears no substantial relationship with natural language either. The value of classical logic is found in its capacity to be used in classical mathematics. But the question of "what follows from what" is meaningless without a domain to which it refers, and the "world as such" is not a domain.

[@TheBigWazowski]

@@IndustrialMilitia​​⁠​​⁠​⁠​​⁠I don’t really disagree with anything you’re saying, but I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. I’m just reiterating what was said in the video from 1:45-2:12. If you think that’s equivocating, then okay… I never suggested that a logical implication generates reality. The question is why does reality have enough structure for us to apply logics to it. Brower’s intuitionism does not answer this question

[@Heligoland360]

Logic is prior to mathematics. Mathematics is logic applied given certain axioms.

[@augustbergquist9753]

This is why I'm doing a phd in math (and what I remind myself when I feel like I shouldn't). I just find this sort of thing super trippy and cool. I don't necessarily do logic (at least not yet), but I do enjoy getting to interact with the part of reality that fascinates me most on a daily basis.

[@Brenden-H]

if you haven't already you should try learning computer science from the ground up. like logic gates and circuits and stuff. Its supper fascinating and you can physically see the manifestation of logic within the universe physically build on itself to create a more complex structure.

[@augustbergquist9753]

@@Brenden-H That sounds super awesome! I've been wanting to that for a while now

[@BreezeTalk]

Finally some British people on my KZbin, thank goodness!!!

[@SalGargini]

This would be a good topic on which to debate Jay Dyer

[@dertechl6628]

Logics are formal languages and we can use them to express thoughts and reasons, just like with natural languages like English. The laws of logic describe how we can syntactically alter sentences to simulate a process of reasoning. I don't think we have to make it more complicated than this.

[@planteruines5619]

where does language come from ?

[@El_Bruno7510]

@@planteruines5619 People invented it to convey meaning when their brains had evolved sufficiently to require communication.

[@planteruines5619]

@@El_Bruno7510 how can a brain pass from electric signal to concept , first of all , second of all , since Logic is identity , how can a brain be before building Logic ?

[@El_Bruno7510]

@@planteruines5619 Easy. Evolution. Prove logic is identity. Logic is invented by an evolved brain to explain certain concepts. Logic comes AFTER evolved brains. Explain how your god is not incoherent.

[@planteruines5619]

@@El_Bruno7510 Logic (the classic) has a law called identity , in which it is said that when something is , it is , contradiction comes from two identities being incompatible (like you and me , we are not the same ) , and no , Logic doesn't come from our mind (since the brain isn't even the center of consciousness but the main piece of the circuitry ) since it pre exists it (otherwise , contradiction ) , thirdly , evolution is not a debunk except maybe for the protestant fundamentalist , and lastly my God is cohérent because logic is coherent and God = Logic

[@Dark-Light_Ascendin]

Ashton Kutchers smart brother?

[@Robinson8491]

I like his point that we use the laws of logic to analyse the laws of logic. This implies there must have been some Nash equilibrium formed in the game between the dynamics of the outer world and the dynamics of the inner world, to get to a 'reasonable logic' out of all the logics that can analyse both itself and the outer world. My opinion this equillibrium is found and based on the pauli exclusion principle, that is something maybe a mix from both our genetic past as bacteria, and our observational past as animal observers, combined. It creates for us the physical concept of law of non contradiction, and from this the other laws followed imo

[@alexandertaylor7316]

I'd reason that logic is an inherant property of any plane of existence where the property of cause and effect exists.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

How do you justify your claim?🤔

[@Knightfall21]

That's not a reason, that's an assumption.

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

@@Knightfall21 Justification is scarce these days

[@Drkwll]

​@@keitumetsemodipa3012 By using logic? 😂

[@keitumetsemodipa3012]

@@Drkwll How do you justify logic?

[@anthonygray7391]

I've never heard Alex say, "whatever man".

[@Mr.MattSim]

I was very surprised by the tired old misrepresentation of theism. (At least classic Christian theism). It's a classic false dichotomy of God being either arbitrary or else governed by abstract universals. Instead, God's nature is the source and foundation of fundamental aspects of reality, such as logic, goodness, beauty. Consequently, God would not do otherwise, but also simultaneously is not constrained by any of them.

[@АртурИванов-ч9э]

Is God constrained by his nature?

[@nicholaslogan5185]

How can something be constrained by something that is boundless? 😅❤😂✌️

[@АртурИванов-ч9э]

@@nicholaslogan5185 are you answering me? As I know God's nature is very specific, it's not "everything", so it's not boundless

[@nicholaslogan5185]

@@АртурИванов-ч9э you know God's nature? That's a great claim. I'm happy for you 😊

[@АртурИванов-ч9э]

@@nicholaslogan5185 if we talking about God in classical theism it's definitely not boundless. And it's not a great claim, you can check it out for yourself. But if you're talking about another kind of God it can be anything you like, of course.

[@protrepticus5495]

The avoidance of contradiction confers evolutionary benefits. These benefits give rise to a drive to avoid contradiction. The drive to avoid contradiction is captured by the Law of Non-Contradiction. The Law of Non-Contradiction is encapsulated by the Sheffer Stroke operation. The Sheffer Stroke can be successively applied to derive of all other operations of classical logic. Logic is the systematic avoidance of contradiction.

[@masonhoughton7885]

Logic, like science, isn't about building a perfect answer, but rather about following the evidence and engaging with scrutiny. We are the apex predator of a world built on the suffering and survival of millions of years of life forms, and we have relatively recently developed communication with each other. It's perfectly reasonable to accept the idea that our understanding of logic is incomplete while still endeavoring to expand our understanding of it

[@timherz86]

Yeah but that opens up another box of questions. Mainly: why does the universe seem to hold any logical structure at all. What does this say about the reality of logical rules

[@planteruines5619]

how can you even use empirical reason towards logic when you need to adhere to logic in order to have that empirical reasoning

[@El_Bruno7510]

@@planteruines5619 Wrong. You need empirical reasoning to reason to logic and you get empirical reasoning by empiricism. That is grounded in materialism.

[@planteruines5619]

@@El_Bruno7510 nah logic is présupposed to do empiricist mesurmement , you can use empiric data to fuel a logical argument however, but not the logical structure itself

[@El_Bruno7510]

@@planteruines5619 Wrong. Your god is presupposed to be the giver of logic. Which is absolutely laughable. You demonstrably need empirical data to prove logic. Prove otherwise.

[@dohpam1ne]

I think a lot of questions like this one can be traced back to framing it in the wrong way. Not every concept that we can talk about "comes from" something in the way that heat comes from fire.

[@glenncurry3041]

Laws of Logic are perhaps like the Laws of Physics. We don't create them. We discover them. We discover gravity by watching things "fall". We discover the law of identity by seeing things being exclusively identified.

[@momom6197]

Huh, no. We definitely create the laws of logic. Student in Master in Logic and Computation here. A lot of classical logic feels so obvious as to be baked into the real world to people, but some of it is very much not; also, it's far from the only logic we've invented. Many logics are created to make sense of the world: for example, default logic is an attempt at making inferences in the absence of information, motivated by the fact that people infer some things by default. All sorts of logics do all sorts of things, and are appropriate for different applications... It's a bit like having multiple tools you can use to fix a car.

[@glenncurry3041]

@@momom6197 "Create" - ex nihilo - to bring into existence. So you claim humans make up the Laws of Logic out of thin air? Well actually not even thin air because that would be out of something. Rather than adherence to known identifiable processes? Aristotle made up Excluded Middle from whole cloth?

[@kasuo7039]

To determine whether logic is discovered or created is as absurd as determining whether god exists or not. To determine something, you need knowledge and truth. Logic relies on presuppositions, presuppositions cannot be known and therefore cannot be known to be true. Philosophy is about reasoning from tautologies, which is an impossible task for a human. This is the "strongest" intuition. The answer to every philosophical question is that you don’t know, because you have no reasonable knowledge/proof. You have beliefs and emotions, those are not reasonable.

[@glenncurry3041]

@@kasuo7039 To posit a god's existence is the absurdity! If this confuses you. So will any attempt at logic. Knowledge/ proof? I think... therefore... But this seems to also confuse you.

[@BenStowell]

@@kasuo7039 interesting, so you don't know that "The answer to every philosophical question is that you don’t know, because you have no reasonable knowledge/proof" because you have no reasonable knowledge or proof, only beliefs and emotions...

[@Solomon-n9v]

Such an interesting concept; it appears to me that no matter how you examine logic (theistically or not), it becomes inevitably self-explanatory whereby some primitive or "base-case" logic is required to ground the rest of logic.

[@pichirisu]

Y’all would appreciate the epistemology behind statistics/probability/possibility, and information theory.

[@cosmodradek]

Just read "Origin of the Logical", aphorism 111 from Nietzsche's "The Joyful Wisdom". It just begins like this: "Where has logic originated in men's heads? Undoubtedly out of the illogical".

[@SeekersTavern...]

I would say, from the theistic point of view, this problem mirrors the euthyphro dilemma and solution. *- "Is something good because God says it’s good, or because it is good?"* *- "Is the world logical because God made it logical, or because it is logical?"* This dilemma suggests that either goodness/logic are arbitrary or that they are independent of God, both being logically inconsistent. The solution to both is that goodness/logic is inherent in God and comes from his very nature, not because of an arbitrary decision nor because they are independent of God and thereby God is subject to them.

[@celadon2048]

Very good talk.

[@nazarakopyantc514]

Alex is probably like Nikacado Avocado tricking us into thinking that he's crazy for not shaving that moustache but actually it's long gone and all this time he was two steps ahead of us.... Let that sink in

[@BennettAustin7]

Professor Susan hack pretty much put the nail in the coffin on logic no? I’m talking about her paper on the problem of deduction. Does anyone know if there have been recent developments since then?

[@francescaerreia8859]

It comes from the law of identity and its corollary, the law of non contradiction. Things are what they are. And it works so well because we’re right, things actually are what they are.

[@TigburtJones]

When he starts talking about a question being interesting; I turned it off; because that was the peak of information exchanged between these two

[@tatsumakisempyukaku]

Logic is how we deal with or make sense of, see the relationship inherent in the realm of multiplicity, or interdepending distinctions

[@lepidoptera9337]

No, it isn't. ;-)

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@keithcarlylemullin7470]

That (4:52) is my new favourite quote XD "It's like I always say... Whatever man."

[@philcava6265]

Logic or inference is based on our concept of cause and effect. An infant must understand A=A, and that 'A' has object permance to be capable of forming expectations or inferences.

[@tatsumakisempyukaku]

There’s a difference between validity and soundness of an argument

[@shanejohns7901]

@8:30 I didn't see the test. I only heard of it. And I don't even know if it was a legend or if it actually happened. But IIRC the experiment conditioned rats to where a buzzer went off a short while before the floor shocked their feet. And the rats could, by pressing a lever, not only deactivate the shock that would happen, but also receive a food pellet -- presumably an enjoyable food pellet. Nothing really surprising there. But after conditioning the rats this way, the 'scientists' took the food pellet reward out of the equation. And the rats continued to press the lever to remove the negative stimulus (the electrified cage floor). Not really surprising. It's an association. The surprising part came when they shocked the rats even if the rats pressed the lever. Those rats did basically just cower in their cages unable to process reality any further. It's horrifying to imagine doing this to any animal.

[@sicparvismagna_]

From the observation that knowledge is hierarchical.

[@sordidknifeparty]

I am also no Quantum physicist, so this is probably wrong for some reason that would be incredibly obvious to someone who is, but to me it seems that a wave is the definitional opposite of a particle, therefore something in reality cannot both be a particle and simultaneously be a wave ( a not particle), because of the law of noncontradiction. However in reality, it seems that this is the case almost all the time everywhere, where things are behaving both as particles and as waves simultaneously, which seems to violate the law of noncontradiction. I wonder if anyone can help me correct this

[@shassett79]

In my understanding, wave-particle duality is an observation from classical physics in which things seem to have wave-like properties in one set of circumstances and particle-like properties in another set of circumstances. It wasn't meant to say that the thing _is_ both a wave and a particle, simultaneously. In quantum physics, they talk about "quanta," which are conceptual particles whose existence is statistical in nature and described by a "wave function." I think a lot of confusion comes from the way subject matter experts reuse terms between quantum and classical physics.

[@Existidor.Serial137]

the problem is in the language. "particles" are neither. They are something else! WE dont have a word for it, they tried "wavicle", but it didnt work. The current term is "quantum object".

[@mostshenanigans]

Like all things in maths, the laws of logic come from the axioms we agree on.

[@CMDRZero01]

The most fascinating thing about this video and the comment section is the low amount of Likes. Its like the concepts themselves are so intriguing, people are spending more time pondering and self reflecting. It's oddly reassuring.

[@Yamikaiba123]

No, I think that it's rather: from non-contradiction derives something.

[@newdrug1880]

Just to spinn off that thought about quantum logic there, logic starts becomming a compound concept. First there is the fact that particles or whatnot can be described in a more chaotic way, which is then what the new laws of logic are based on, but there is also the asumption that the description of, or the laying out of the new type of rules has some order to it. In other words even a desciption of chaos has some logic in it, but it might be a more, from our understanding, fragmented type of logic.

[@GianniLeon]

This is what we need to change, instead of talking about the same thing over and over let’s use our intelligence to create! 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@frogandspanner]

Could you put some references in the video blurb - such as the name of the chap postulating logic being a result of experience.

[@gregjgman]

Christianity's answer to "can God create a rock so big He can't move it" is "yes and He did" as Christ, who became a man and died on a cross. The question is based upon whether or not an omnipotent being could limit himself. Of course, why not? If limited beings can, of course an unlimited one could.

[@harrisonbennett7122]

7:00 Reminds me of vacuously true arguments in mathematics

[@aviciistsn77]

Are there vacuously false statements as well?

[@harrisonbennett7122]

@@aviciistsn77 um kinda. Any statement follows if something is vacuosuly true. So you can just make the negation statement if you wish.

[@harrisonbennett7122]

@aviciistsn77 as an edit, it just follows from the truth table for p --> q. If p is false then q can be anything and the statement is true

[@ClumpypooCP]

Like … the empty set as a vector space has a basis? Lol

[@harrisonbennett7122]

@ClumpypooCP ah I see what you mean. I guess vacously yes

[@James-ll3jb]

" 'Truth' is a kind of lie without which a certain species could not endure life!" - Nietzsche

[@AlexiHelligar]

We get our understanding of logic from our experience of spacetime where time is a function of space.

[@lepidoptera9337]

That leads to quantum mechanics, actually. ;-)

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@goodfortunetoyou]

"Why is the world not chaos and darkness" is answered basically by the fact that physics is tuned for us to exist. Our neurons and languages are structured such that we can infer the nature of platonic ideals from our environment using biological capabilities. These ideals are encoded into your brain by connecting neural synapses, and those synapses and networks are capable of performing operations like XOR, OR, AND, and NAND. This biological basis underlying humans ability to compute and think is founded on it's physical basis. Biology is based on chemisty. Chemistry is based on physics. Physics corresponds to math, Math logic. The actual rules are simply relationships which remain invariant. You encounter a situation where the rules work, and they don't change, so you then learn them by exposure. The environment encodes a noisy version of the rules, and your brain converges onto that simplified relationship, removing the noise. If Physics were different, we might not be able to do this.We might not even exist. God is tricky, because, well, he's not well-defined, by definition. He's intentionally inscrutable and unquestionable. Basically, we're a bit like those videos where somebody makes a computer in Minecraft. Our brain is the simulated computer built in the Minecraft game, physics is the Minecraft world written in Java, and Logic or God is the computer everything runs on, ensuring the world is sensible, rather than chaos and darkness.

[@physicshuman9808]

10:01 The thing is, God does not do stuff that violates the aspect of Who God is. God isn’t bounded by logic, how we approach God is.

[@Jackson_Zheng]

I think it's just a lot simpler than that. My view is to simply take the scientific perspective and believe that we are simply takinga guess - a random shot in the dark - but it just so happens to be directed by evolution and the laws of physics. So there is a small probability that the basic rules of logic is wrong or incomplete, and there is a possibility of a contradiction somewhere in the universe, but it is so obscure that we have not found it as of yet. So in essence, logic is good enough tool to use until we find evidence of contradictions in the natural world.

[@SilentAsianRoach]

Isn’t it more likely they it derivative of the capacity of thought we have? Maybe as a set of rules that “ought” to be followed when engaging in logical thinking. Almost like a projection of our thoughts on to material reality. We can never escape the confines of our minds.

[@thereisnonegoodbutgodjohn363]

God is the epitome of Holiness because He is sinlessly perfect, A sinner (liar, sexually immoral, taking the Lord’s Name in vain, thief etc) cannot be in the presence of God or else he will be utterly consumed therefore repent of your sins and put your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour to go to Heaven.

[@jz5005]

One o these guys forgot their teddy bear.

[@CheCheDaWaff]

Is there a reason to suppose that this isn't just a case of definition / meaning of terms? If I say "If A then B" then the meaning of that statement is that if A is true then B is true. What's mysterious about that? It's a bit like I've observed a Venn Diagram where the B circle is contained entirely in the A circle.

[@cescohenrichs2655]

What is the true nature of reality is complete infinite randomness we are in a bit of randomness that happens to be incredibly well-ordered as if it’s not random.

[@timrose4310]

From definitions flow the laws of logic for deterministic things. For probabilistic things we have a different toolkit: statistics and inference. One may argue all is deterministic it's just that we can't calculate it all and so probability is our coping mechanism and that's fair if quantum mechanics Uncertainty is shown later to be incorrect.

[@gravitheist5431]

Without logic logic wouldn't matter, logically speaking . "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." Is this an argument for the importance of logical reasoning over emotional or irrational conclusions . Is logical reasoning prioritised because of the outcome ? Is logic natural and immutable ?

[@davidroux7987]

Shocking... two English people having s discussion in England 🇬🇧

[@coreygossman6243]

Sounds like two students talking

[@OneTwo-s6n]

If everything exists unless something prevents it from existing, and the only thing which would prevent something from existing is the non-contradiction principle (which is the only thing I see which does), then the non contradiction principle would exist, because nothing wouldn't exist until it does.

[@El_Bruno7510]

You are confusing material objects with concepts invented by material objects. And you entire premise is that the default position is that things only exist because there is nothing preventing them from existing. That is bizarre!

[@augustbergquist9753]

Ah, another comment. Logic could be grounded in the nature of God, just as goodness is grounded in the nature of God. God doesn't just do good things, he is good, in fact he is Goodness. You could probably do something like that with logic too, but i won't try. Maybe you could argue that logic is the way it is, because God is the way he is.

[@DanielBro42]

his real name is Sir Robert Bryson Hall II, he came from Rockville, Maryland

[@christiansather8438]

Why does no one talk about logic being only achievable because we interface with a phonetic alphabet? A place for everything and everything in its place. It’s a visual/spatial metaphor like our notions of time.

[@MusixPro4u]

For the curious: The law of bivalence says that any proposition *can* only be true or false, while the law of the excluded middle says that anything *has* to be either true or false.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

But what’s the difference between ‘can only’ and ‘must’?

[@SixOhFive]

It’s just like I was thinking about my bio test: how can you be tested on something that is based on the most “proven” and accepted theories and where nothing is considered “fact”.

[@ArronSturgeonPaintings-so2xc]

What are your thoughts on ancient Greek Dialectic?

[@Contribute_TakeCare_Learn_Play]

If an animal brain recognizes that "if there's a predator then i have three options". To simplify. Then given that those phenomena work that way. We recognize these aspects in reality and then conceptualize it. In this case it's nature following a logical structure

[@drawn2myattention641]

Impossible to conceive of a world where the laws of logic don't apply. Even a completely chaotic world needs to submit to the logical proposition: "this is a completely chaotic world."

[@JerehmiaBoaz]

No it doesn't, there is no way to prove the proposition because logic doesn't apply.

[@Existidor.Serial137]

I dont know, mental worlds (like dreams) dont follow the law of logic. However I think real worlds, actualized worlds, do have to follow them or they cant become "real".

[@planteruines5619]

​@@Existidor.Serial137they do because each thing in a dream has an identity in order to exist , however the causal links and chains ate just very different , that's a difference of congruence, not hard Logic

[@El_Bruno7510]

@@planteruines5619 How far have you gone down this thread you desperate troll?

[@goclbert]

There is always logic of some kind but they need not be THE laws of logic

[@callmedeno]

The laws of logic are given great weight by the mathematics that we have been able to do with it, and the trend with modern mathematics is that physics seems to connect to many of these concepts and structures. Obviously we still have problems, and mathematicians still disagree about foundations but its a more immediate practical question even for the few I've spoken to, the logic and axioms bear fruit and so they use it, for now Basically, do you agree or disagree with certain logical foundations and set theoretic / categorical formulations, and if you disagree do you understand everything else that you're disagreeing with?

[@villevanttinen908]

Created of course, go outside and try to find one single pure triangle or circle, you don" t find one.

[@spacesciencelab]

11:35 This is the Euthyphro Dilemma but applied to logic. God doesn't will logic; He is logic itself. Using the wee analogy of the sun emitting light can be a helpful way to illustrate the concept that God is logic itself rather than merely willing logic into existence. In this wee analogy: Inherent Nature: The sun emits light not because it chooses to, but because emitting light is an inherent aspect of its nature. It's what the sun is. God as Logic: Likewise, God doesn't decide to conform to logic or create logical laws; rather, He is logic itself. Logic emanates from God just as light emanates from the sun. The analogy demonstrates that logic is not external to God or subject to His will but is an essential attribute of His very being. Just as the sun cannot be separated from the light it emits, God cannot be separated from logic.

[@АртурИванов-ч9э]

In your analogy God is the sun, and in mine God is the legislator, which means he creates laws. Does the analogy imply reality? Can you demonstrate the truth of your thoughts? Ps. the sun is not light, light is a derivative of the sun.

[@spacesciencelab]

@@АртурИванов-ч9э God, being an eternal and uncreated entity, implies that the laws He establishes are also uncreated and exist outside of time and creation. In contrast, a human legislator is a finite, created being whose laws are products of temporal existence. This creates a potential category error in the analogy between God and a legislator. That said, I'll provide a more detailed response later, as I'm currently occupied with work.

[@devalapar7878]

The laws of logic come from nature. Natural laws allow us to make definitions and logical updates. There are laws that don't allow that. If we assume the natural laws, then it comes from the definition.

[@mrtienphysics666]

Simple. Logic is invented by human beings. That is why different human beings use different logic. There are some clues that other animals have logic too. Logical thinking is a product of human evolution.

[@felipec]

There isn't a single logic, there's multiple types of logic.

[@habibvakilitahami6231]

What about Hegel?

[@winterphilosophy3900]

Logic probably originated from the first time we had to learn how to predict things, as the human race.

[@karhqo]

What comes before the question?

[@timrose4310]

Why can't a ball be both round and a rectangular prism simultaneously? Because we have defined the words "ball", "round", and "rectangular prism" and note that a rectangular prism cannot fit the definition of a round ball.

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, It ain't. - Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum

[@thomasmcgraw8778]

If quantum mechanics follow different laws of logic then we're used to then why does math still predict it? Might not be articulated well but think about it. Math is just a very quantitative form of logic so it seem like a valid question.

[@geogamelion7895]

I have thought about this too and I think religous people can probably say that god itself is logic. same way he is love itself. I think that would work for them. So he cannot lift an unliftable stone which he made for the same reason he cannot commit evil. its against his nature.

[@stanleyszelagowski7599]

I love you guys.

[@Balmung-ki5b]

how can something be prior to something outside of time?

[@MidwitObservations]

Christian apologetics for the living logic as logos is the most suffistcated outcome for our reasoning on the pounderance of the source. Logic is the source of all things like code. Yahweh, brahma. I call it the "all no-thing"

I don't understand why you say there is a problem for theism as well. In theism God is the source of logic, meaning logic is the way the mind of God functions. Since God is eternal, there is no PRIOR to logic, it was always functioning like this, and GOD cannot change His nature, it's not like He can change the logic and contradict Himself, it would literally mean for Him to change His nature, but God fundamentally is not changeable in His nature, because whatever is changeable is corruptible (as Augustin puts it), and Him being perfect, should be unchangeable in His nature. Either I didn't understood well, or you see the source of logic differently in theism, but personally I don't see any problem of grounding it. thanks for the nice discussion!