Originally posted by LemonJello
Good question. I don't really have the slightest idea how that would work, which is why I already indicated a couple of times in this thread that the notion makes no sense to me.

Really, I was just trying to understand your position more clearly because you employed "self existent" in your previous post, but then seemed to go on to contradict yourse ...[text shortened]...

I'm confident now that I understand your position better and that we pretty much agree.

Yes , I'm basically saying that some things just are and that's the end of the matter. There is no why? or how?

Originally posted by knightmeister
And in fact this may well be true , but you cannot afford yourself such an idea because you don't believe it . Therefore it is YOU that needs to withdraw your claim or at least re-think it. Don't forget that it was you that started this line of thinking not me , so the onus is still on you to show how some "logic" like 1+1=2 can exist as separate from the universe.

I am sorry but my line of logic does not require God.

What else is there but the universe whitey? If pure logic is not part of the universe what exactly is it? Can you say?
I call it logic. It is not a physical part of the universe and you have not shown that it is. In fact your attempts to show that it was failed miserably. You were almost claiming that logic does not exist unless man thinks it. How then do you explain that every time man does think it, the same answer results? Is it a property of the universe? If so, does it not hold true for God who is supposedly external to the universe?

In fact you seem to spend more time trying to refute your own argument then pretending that 'God' is the only answer and that I do not want to 'go there'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am sorry but my line of logic does not require God.

[b]What else is there but the universe whitey? If pure logic is not part of the universe what exactly is it? Can you say?
I call it logic. It is not a physical part of the universe and you have not shown that it is. In fact your attempts to show that it was failed miserably. You were almost cla ...[text shortened]... argument then pretending that 'God' is the only answer and that I do not want to 'go there'.[/b]

LOL!! I can argue that logic is part of the universe. It exists within brains which form part of the natural biological life on the planet called earth. In reality logic could be said to be a series of electrical impulses which pass through said brains via neurons which fire in particular patterns. This much is pretty undisputable. However , you have a further claim which you think must be true because I can't disprove it. But we both know it doesn't work that way because I might as well say God exists because you can't prove he doesn't. (you would never let ME get away with it , why should I let you? )

If you think that logic is some entity , force ,matter or energy that "exists" as separate from humans then please demonstrate it. I don't think you can. Just like you can't tell me what time is made of.

The onus is on you to say what logic is if it is more than a thought in men's minds. It is your proposition not mine.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am sorry but my line of logic does not require God.

[b]What else is there but the universe whitey? If pure logic is not part of the universe what exactly is it? Can you say?
I call it logic. It is not a physical part of the universe and you have not shown that it is. In fact your attempts to show that it was failed miserably. You were almost cla ...[text shortened]... argument then pretending that 'God' is the only answer and that I do not want to 'go there'.[/b]

How then do you explain that every time man does think it, the same answer results? ---whitey---

Simple , the universe is largely consistent and behaves consistently according to physical laws (gravity , electro magnetism , etc ) What we call logic is really what we see the universe doing most of the time (according to overwhelming probability). If gravity repelled instead of attracted , that phenomenon would be labelled as "logical" . If there are other universes that have different physical laws then in those universes there might be a different kind of "logic".

So when something happens that defies what we normally see in the universe we call it improbable or maybe illogical , or we revise our ideas of what logical is.

1+1=2 arises out of the existence of the universe just like E=mc2 . These equations are just descriptions of the way the universe is. Just like time is a description of causality which is in turn a description of what happens in the universe. However , descriptions are not the same as the reality they describe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am sorry but my line of logic does not require God.

[b]What else is there but the universe whitey? If pure logic is not part of the universe what exactly is it? Can you say?
I call it logic. It is not a physical part of the universe and you have not shown that it is. In fact your attempts to show that it was failed miserably. You were almost cla ...[text shortened]... argument then pretending that 'God' is the only answer and that I do not want to 'go there'.[/b]

I am sorry but my line of logic does not require God.---whitey---

But you seem to see it as some kind of separate entity or form of existence??? Tell me , what is logic made of? Any ideas? Is it a liquid? Does it smell?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Simple , the universe is largely consistent and behaves consistently according to physical laws (gravity , electro magnetism , etc ) What we call logic is really what we see the universe doing most of the time (according to overwhelming probability).

I see where the confusion is coming in. You do not know what logic is! Logic has nothing to do with, and is totally independent of, the laws of physics. In fact, I challenge you to give one example of a logical fact that would change if one or any number of the laws of physics was changed.

If gravity repelled instead of attracted , that phenomenon would be labelled as "logical" .
No it wouldn't. Do you consider the attraction of gravity to be 'logical'? What would you mean by that?

Originally posted by knightmeister
But you seem to see it as some kind of separate entity or form of existence??? Tell me , what is logic made of? Any ideas? Is it a liquid? Does it smell?

No, I have never said or implied that it is an entity and if I used the word 'exist' I never meant it to mean physical existence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I have never said or implied that it is an entity and if I used the word 'exist' I never meant it to mean physical existence.

erhem? Maybe you would like to tell me how it exists then if not physically? Spiritually maybe? I thought you subscribed to the idea that the physical universe is all that there is. Therefore , anything that does not exist within the physical universe....erhem....doesn't exist ...full stop.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see where the confusion is coming in. You do not know what logic is! Logic has nothing to do with, and is totally independent of, the laws of physics. In fact, I challenge you to give one example of a logical fact that would change if one or any number of the laws of physics was changed.

[b]If gravity repelled instead of attracted , that phenomenon w ...[text shortened]... 't. Do you consider the attraction of gravity to be 'logical'? What would you mean by that?

Do you consider the attraction of gravity to be 'logical'? What would you mean by that?---whitey---

Of course I consider many things to be logical within the universe , like apples falling on heads and light bouncing of mirrors at certain angles etc etc because that's the way the universe works , if it worked differently from that then no doubt I would find other things to be logical instead. If you lived in a universe with no gravity then you might find the idea of things falling to the ground very bizarre and illogical.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see where the confusion is coming in. You do not know what logic is! Logic has nothing to do with, and is totally independent of, the laws of physics. In fact, I challenge you to give one example of a logical fact that would change if one or any number of the laws of physics was changed.

[b]If gravity repelled instead of attracted , that phenomenon w ...[text shortened]... 't. Do you consider the attraction of gravity to be 'logical'? What would you mean by that?

I challenge you to give one example of a logical fact that would change if one or any number of the laws of physics was changed.

--whitey---

So for you the laws of physics are based on logic not the other way round?

Surely if I messed with the laws of physics the universe itself might not even exist or could be totally chaotic. What would happen to logic then? Did logic pre-exist the universe?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Surely if I messed with the laws of physics the universe itself might not even exist or could be totally chaotic. What would happen to logic then? Did logic pre-exist the universe?

Logic is a closed self-referential system. It makes no reference to the universe, so I don't see any reason why it requires the universe to exist.

Whether it pre-existed the universe is going to depend on whether the concept of "pre-existing the universe" actually makes any sense - if there was no time then it doesn't. It's safer to just say that it's independent of the universe.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Of course I consider many things to be logical within the universe , like apples falling on heads and light bouncing of mirrors at certain angles etc etc because that's the way the universe works , if it worked differently from that then no doubt I would find other things to be logical instead. If you lived in a universe with no gravity then you might find the idea of things falling to the ground very bizarre and illogical.

He's right, you know - this isn't logic. You seem to be confusing "logical" with "intuitive". Bizarre is not the opposite of logical.

What logic does do is let you build upon physical theories. It is a logical consequence of the theory of gravity that apples fall, in that if one is true then the other occurs. A implies B. But logic doesn't tell you that A is true, it just says that if A is true, then B must also be true.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Of course I consider many things to be logical within the universe , like apples falling on heads and light bouncing of mirrors at certain angles etc etc because that's the way the universe works , if it worked differently from that then no doubt I would find other things to be logical instead. If you lived in a universe with no gravity then you might find the idea of things falling to the ground very bizarre and illogical.

As I pointed out, you do not understand the concept of logic. It is correct to say that when a apple breaks off a branch it 'logically' falls to the ground. However, lets analyze the meaning of that. If is 'logical' for it to fall to the ground because it is following a law of physics. The law itself is not logical. It just is. To restate it in mathematics: If x=y and y=2 then it is logical that x=2. But x=y is not in itself logical. It just is. Change the formula, and you do not change logic. Change gravity and the apple will move differently but logic will be unaffected.

As for the 'existence' of logic, let us first look at information. Information does not physically exist. The physical world stores information but the information remains independent of it. Information can be copied without change from place to place and time to time. It is not a physical entity and is independent of space and time.

Did logic pre-exist the universe?
Again, you are presupposing the physical existence of logic which is incorrect. Logic is not dependent on time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I pointed out, you do not understand the concept of logic. It is correct to say that when a apple breaks off a branch it 'logically' falls to the ground. However, lets analyze the meaning of that. If is 'logical' for it to fall to the ground because it is following a law of physics. The law itself is not logical. It just is. To restate it in mathematic ...[text shortened]... posing the physical existence of logic which is incorrect. Logic is not dependent on time.

Information does not physically exist. The physical world stores information but the information remains independent of it.--whitey-----


I destroy your cd and the information on it is lost , it is therefore not independent. It may be an independent concept but even concepts are not independent of the brain (in the mechanistic world view) . If the brain is damaged so is the concept/information. The two are always linked inextricably. Name one instance where a piece of information was not dependent on the physical world in some way.

Originally posted by mtthw
He's right, you know - this isn't logic. You seem to be confusing "logical" with "intuitive". Bizarre is not the opposite of logical.

What logic does do is let you build upon physical theories. It is a logical consequence of the theory of gravity that apples fall, in that if one is true then the other occurs. A implies B. But logic doesn't tell you that A is true, it just says that if A is true, then B must also be true.

A implies B. But logic doesn't tell you that A is true, it just says that if A is true, then B must also be true.---------


....ah but that very logic depends upon observation of physical laws being consistent. If we lived in a universe where the laws changed irregularly then logic could not survive.