Logic is very widely considered to be the method on which humanity relies for its productivity and existence. However, logic in itself is absolutely insane, slain by its own self. You could say that it is an infinite snake swallowing itself. This blog is not something that will shake the foundations of your ideas for most of you (unless you happen to be at a breaking point), so it is merely interesting revalation. Those who would actually find this as an affirmation or supreme revelation to their thoughts are the hierophants, mystics, logicians, metaphysicists, and philosophers. This entire blog is a re-explanation of a speech on yoga done by Aleister Crowley. For the curious, I'll give the link at the bottom of the blog. With that said, let's get started!
We can start with the most basic assumption: A is A. Or, A = A. We can agree that A is either A or not A--there is no third option. But what is A? If we have nothing to compare A to, and A is A, this sentence is altogether meaningless. Cat = Cat is meaningless if we do not have Cat != Dog, Cat != Cow to compare to. (!= is programmer syntax for "not equal to".) So, by definition, A must = BC-- a means of defining A. In turn, B must equal DE, and C must equal FG, and so on until you reach Z, at which point you must resort to A again, or create more letters, perhaps into infinite. In either case, it makes no sense and is far from functional.
It is a fact that if you take any definition and try to bring it down to its most narrow definition, you ultimately reach either a) a contradiction or b) no plausible answer that is acceptable to logic. A few good examples of this (if everything doesn't, in fact, boil down to it) is just the question: how was the Universe created? Sure--the Big Bang, or Creationism (which is completely implausible, by the way, and I do believe in "God"). But before then? Assumin that there is an infinite lapse of time (which is not dubious at all--time is a concept, and to assume that the universe has a limited amount of "time" is simply absurd), then what came before, and before, and before? Obviously, something had to have existed in order to create the Big Bang. If it was matter, the law of entropy negates that--this law states that everything falls into chaos. With a potential infinite amount of time before the creation of the "universe", then all things should have deteriorated away into small, small, small dust motes without gravity. Or, into gigantic black holes. Then again, who is to say what was even possible before the universe existed? The mind grasps vaguely at completely hypothetical methods.
Either way, our logic does not give us an irrevocable answer to the origin of anything. The same example can be shown as thus: assume we have nothing. Let us place a concept over this nothing--the concept of space, which is also very silly. Space is a continuum that remains the same no matter where it is. We merely use "space" and "location" as concepts to orient ourselves in a logic-run world. Now, let us construct something out of this space: So, we have a plot--and on this plot we place a point. Let us call it A. Okay. It's A--so what? What does this mean? It doesn't mean anything--it's a point in "space" which means nothing. It has no width or length, but it is just a point. It has no importance, because we have nothing to relate it to. Let's add another point--B. Now, we have two points--we can distinguish between A and B. A is A, B is B, A is NOT B because A is A and not B, and B is B and not A. So, we have different points. If we draw a line between them that has no breadth, but is a line--we know it is a line. But what else? So what? What does this mean? Once again, this also means nothing to us until we add another point (C) to form a triangle, and can say that this line AB is longer or shorter than line AC or AB. You can construct it further and add a plane--another dot separate from the plane, adding into the Z axis from the regular XYZ plot--huzzah! We have just crossed into the third dimension!
This can go on, and on, and on, and on until you finally create something perceivable by the human mind that you would see in reality. Of course, this shows how logic is absurd, as is experience of "logical" things: everything we perceive and understand logically has been created by the most simple foundations of A = A, and A = BC. However, A is only defined by BC, which is in turn defined by DEFG, and in turn by HJKLMNOP, and so on--until we go full circle and arrive at A, or fictionalize more letters and never have an answer. Simply, logic is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Logic defines itself by creating new things to define itself which, in turn which must be defined. The basest form--A--cannot be defined. Why? Because it requires duality to be defined.
Duality is everywhere. Positive and negative are even down to the deepest forms--protons (+), electrons (-), and subatomic particles that already have positive or negative charges. So, how does one find the "truth", what reality really is? Wherever it is, it's not in the law of logic. Not only that, but no matter how you present this argument to a person--they will be quite convicted that a cow is a cow, or that a cow is black and white (mostly), no matter how much logic may prove this truly means nothing. Experience is not rational--or perhaps, since experience and reality is the most pure form of existence possible, it is rational, and it is logic that is insane.
And what are the implications for the average reader? ... Nothing. Go back to posting your blogs.
YOGA FOR YELLOWBELLIES - Third Lecture
(I advise open-mindedness when reading this website if you choose to read anything else than what I've said, in its original form.)
I refuse to believe that A is, in fact, A. I say that A is Q and that you cannot prove anything to the contrary.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
If A = Q, then Q = A, so A = A and Q = Q, wouldn't you say?
If not, you must have a different system of logic, which still must endlessly define itself. It's still insane!
---
Ironically, people think I'm being sarcastic or witty when I say my eyes glazed over.
http://www.progressiveu.com/blog/scyze
No. A != A and Q != Q, however A = Q.
A != A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z over the closed interval [A, Z]. By defining A as not everything else, we find that A = Q.
Q != B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z over the closed interval [A,Z].
Therefore, A = Q and Q = A but neither equal themselves.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
That seems redundant! Why don't we simply create another letter to replace both A and Q, if they both are equivelant (or, gasp, the same)? Also, what is your formula for the rest of the letters?
---
Ironically, people think I'm being sarcastic or witty when I say my eyes glazed over.
http://www.progressiveu.com/blog/scyze
I have to disagree.
Q is both dead and alive.
A' = Q = A.= A'
But Q != Q and A = A and
For all values, x, on the interval [A, Z],except A and Q, x = x.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Nick, you and I both know that that is not possible.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
Possible, not plausible.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
It defies the property of definition, it's not logically possible.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
May I remind you who 5 people on ProU voted God? Me. I defy logic. What now?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
May I remind you that, like the rest of the media world, we can skew live poll results.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
Mike, you've made a good run, but no. I win. A !=A and that's final. ;-) jeez...Don't you know that sarcastic logic means that for all values, x, on the interval [A,Z]
x != x ?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Logic is a method. It works on mathematical principles which are universally constant. That doesn't mean that it can elicit all of the truths of the universe. (In theory) we live in a universe, not a computer. Things can follow logical principles, but that doesn't mean that they must.
Also, you made this bizarre statement about letters being equivalent to other letters ad infinitum. Logic (coming from the Greek logos meaning 'word') is a means of relating expressions. Sure, it's possible to relate everything to everything, but you don't often do it. That's like saying that, because you can count infinitely higher, infinitely lower, or infinitely more precise, numbers are not useful.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
Adam = Google Eyed and Confused.
---
Respectfully,
Adam
A-Team Member
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
I am only confused about logic when you start talking about math.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
But liars do figure.
The application of logic is only possible where the situation can be modeled in mathematical terms. This is in theory possible for anything, but gererally requires that simplified models are created. The presumption that logic is not valid shows a misunderstanding of its limits and applications. Since so many matters of opinion are justified by flawed logic this shouldn't suprise anyone.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
Not true.
Even math can be manipulated and proven false. The answers aren't always right and wrong.
I admit that you can FAIL to follow logic in math as well, I am just saying that it is possible to follow it in math. In reality logic is always an aproximation.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
Statistical and mathematical modeling are two examples that are easiest for laymen to comprehend.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
I am so confused, I can't even understand what you are saying. What is statistical/mathematical modeling? What are laymen?
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Why is it an approximation? Could it be that logic is different in everyone's point of view? When christians pray certain prayers and get results, they consider it logical. Atheists don't. So logic is an approximation because it can't be defined specifically, right? What is logical to you may not be logical to me.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
I have never known math to be manipulated and proven false. Give me one example. Math can't be. This isn't debate or english class or even history, which is often easily manipulated. Things are easily manipulated by the choice of words-including some, not including some, alluding, bending. Math is just numbers. REal numbers. You can't manipulate the fact that 2 apples plus 3 is 11. You can lie it is, but in the end there are still 5 apples left .
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
i isn't real. It's a number.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
AHH!! Stop making my brain hurt. I don't like science and math. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LOGIC to why A has to equal BC. It just can't. How can it? we don't even know what A IS! Ouch, my poor brain hurts. Stop philosophizing. A is only a symbol used to represent what you believe it to be. Its not as a mysterious and gripping as you make it sound.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Logic problems are the most confusing. Maybe that's why your entry was so interesting. Now I must ask: Why care what came first? Why question the chicken in the first place? In essence, this is useless information. It does not help us, so why do we bring this question up from time to time?
Logic=Chaos. Chaos=unlogical (situations) therefore, Logic=unlogical situations?
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
As a christian, I agree with you. Why waste time asking? I know the answer. The chiken came first because God made it. There. End of story. Logic is for those who want to confuse themselves and then unconfuse themselves out of the confusing situation so they can brag about how they solved a problem that never was a problem in the first place because the answer was always right there!
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
embryowassup pinned the point of this blog:
"Logic is a method. It works on mathematical principles which are universally constant. That doesn't mean that it can elicit all of the truths of the universe. (In theory) we live in a universe, not a computer."
That's what I was trying to say. I'm aware that logic is very, very useful (boy, I know it)... there's just some things it can't solve.
---
"Your comment doesn't make sense. Whats this about Paris hilton? What are you talking about? You don't make sense." - alenka
My Blog.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
What can't it solve? The existence of God, for example?
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
Holy hell
*********************************************************************************************
Had we not loved ourselves at all, we could never have been obliged to love anything. So that self-love is the basis of all love.
- Thomas Traherne
*********************************************************************************************
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
So far, I haven't learned anything about how logic can be beneficial AND UNDERSTANDABLE outside of math. People just say its useful, but HOW? And what is the point of logic games? Why are people obsessed with theM?
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
Because if you didn't have any logic, I wouldn't be reading your comment right now. Logic starts with the simplest statement, A = A. Or even, "I am". If you had no logic, you wouldn't even get past that state--maybe you might be enlightened, or a vegetable, or just might happen to be a rock. Even emotions follow a logical sequence based on cause and effect, as do all thoughts, language, and... pretty much everything we ever do.
---
"Your comment doesn't make sense. Whats this about Paris hilton? What are you talking about? You don't make sense." - alenka
My Blog.
It appears as if you're intentionally tapping into my virile, reactionary spirit! Hum!
If you don't know what A is, then you can't make a statement about what A is equal to. A may possibly be equal to A, B, C, D, or whatever. But you can't say with certainty that it IS equal to all those, or that it's not equal to any of them! If you don't know then you don't know! If you don't know you can't also know!
The expression A = A is called the noncontradiction principle, and it means that a certain thing is of a certain nature, and not of another at the same time. A certain thing can't be a totally different thing at the same instant.
suppose we didn't know what number X was equal to. This would not matter. X is still itself, and not another number. If someone presented me with a box and asked, "I have inside this box a certain X. What is X?" I could only really answer that X IS X--it is itself. I could NOT say that since I don't know what X is, it's every other letter. I could not say that X is both Brains and Copper.
From your third paragraph onwards, you pretty much dive off the deep end, and I'm not sure you make any really compelling points. A definition of something always leads to a contradiction? Nonsense! 42 is 42 and not 43. A molecule is a molecule and not also a mule. Correct, we don't really know what happened dozens of billions of years ago--but that doesn't say anything about the usefulness of logic, because there are plenty of things we don't know yet.
Yes, of course your two imaginary points in space will mean something. If I stand between A and B, then A will be on my right, and B on my left, or the other way round, of course. A is over there and B is over there. A is not B. What's the problem?
I can spot a rationalization (and a non sequitur) when I see one. This entry was your attempt, using some prestidigitation with mathematical notation to 'transcend' or 'move beyond' 'mere' reason. It may feel pleasant and comforting to entertain the notion that there is something beyond cold, dry logic on which we can rely to make our decisions. And indeed, to many, feelings and urges are hundreds of times more compelling than hard facts. But reason and logic are extremely potent tools for dealing with math, everyday problems, politics, even love and meaning---as long as you apply them critically and honestly. Besides, if not reason, then what? divine inspiration? coin flipping? polling the audience? meditation? LSD? A problem is solvable if you think about it hard enough. But for some of them you must think /really/ hard.
Michael Allen Yarbrough (PBUH)
It's possible that the universe will collapse back onto itself, and that this has been happening for all of time. see Closed Universe
Quarks don't exist strictly in duality. Neither does rock-paper-scissors.
The infinity regression of A = BC, B = DE, C = FG, etc. can be easily resolved as follows:
Because I think, I am "A" and everything else is "not A." This provides me with the profound basis from which to begin all other comparisons and considerations.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.