Logic behind theories and perception.

[apeiron]

Our logic can only work one way: the way the universe's logic works!

The modelling point is that we should not mistake the map for the terrain. Like a map, modelling leaves stuff out to make the essentials clearer. And it is shaped to suit the purposes of the user. A map doesn't have to be crumpled to match the terrain's hills. The correspondence is a working relationship not an attempt to simulate.

Having said that, I would agree it seems logical(!) that we arrive at a single logic that best maps a single world.

And the way I see it working is as a nested relationship.

So we have the kind of ordinary everyday logic people think of as right reasoning (though few can articulate its components or essential rules). As I said, this revolves around ideas such as atomism, locality, determinism, monadism, mechanicalism.

This hangs together as a simple and easy to apply model. It deals with everything via a single causal flow - the bottom-up construction from material atoms.

But then if we are able to step back and take an expanded view of what is going on, we will see the more complex, less familiar yet fuller, causality of systems science.

Now we have a second kind of causality included in our model - top-down constraint by "immaterial" form.

And then adding in the hierarchical interaction of these two causal actions, we can get the third thing which is their equilibration.

So we have two models here - the simple and the complex - in a nested relationship. Leaving us with both a choice about levels of model to apply, and yet also finally only a single logic to match a single world.

[systems logic [atomistic logic]] = a comprehensive guide to reality.

Interestingly, all the people I know doing serious work on an expansion to logic happen to be scientists rather than philosophers - theoretical biologists and neuroscientists mostly.

 

[octelcogopod]

Even if logic applied by humans is some kind of "map of the terrain" analogy, I still think logic as a word means something perfect and that the universe's logic must be 'perfect.'
As we know, anything can be logical, it doesn't have to be real, and that's mainly because our minds are capable of creating internal worlds.
But that doesn't mean logic doesn't extend beyond those internal worlds.. I would think that would be a mistake to assume.

Whether or not we are capable of seeing the universe's logic is unknown to a degree, but from the evidence around us I could argue that we are quite good at it.
A lot of the things we do in the world are logical, and fit with how the world works.

 

[JoeDawg]

Predicting the weather is not illogical, it is just difficult.

You are trying to separate logic (abstract ideas) from mental processes. Plato tried this with his forms, but abstract ideas are just generalizations, functions of mental processes, and these do not exist in the physical universe in the same way other physical things do. Equating the two is always problematic.

Logic can be thought of as a way of thinking, patterning, or abstract modelling; it can also be thought of as the result of that process. The latter refers to specific logical framework.

Claiming that weather follows some pattern(or 'human discernable' pattern), and doesn't include random events, is a claim, and nothing more. Its certainly something climatologists hope is true, but that doesn't make it so.

But either way, it is linked to mental processes, because it is an abstraction.
Astrology, Tarot, and Palmistry, all utilize logic, just as much as weather forecasting, and all with similar success. Weather forecasting gets more respect because it pays lip service to scientific ideas. But until we develop a logical framework that describes it with some level of predictive ability, we can't honestly claim it follows a pattern.

Saying that 'logic exists' as part of the structure of the universe, separate from mind, is simply confusing the map with the terrain, as mentioned.

 

[Hippasos]

You are trying to separate logic (abstract ideas) from mental processes. Plato tried this with his forms, but abstract ideas are just generalizations, functions of mental processes, and these do not exist in the physical universe in the same way other physical things do. Equating the two is always problematic.

You just nailed it! My original questions exactly. How could we begin to try finding solution to the problem - the proof things being one way or other? This surely can't be a matter of opinion...!

http://books.google.fi/books?id=AcX...odCLCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8

http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/extras/deGaris/cosmism.html

http://www.jackklaff.com/ai-3.htm