Thread 82839070

is logic invented or discovered???

>>82839070 (OP)
Discovered. The universe functions on fundamental forces that were always present and observable. Humans didn't invent weak force, strong force, electromagnetism, and gravity. We just started paying attention after a looooooooooooong span of being retarded and realized "oh wait everything is predictable lol".

>>82839070 (OP)
You invent foundational axioms and then you discover what follows from them.

>>82839070 (OP)
discovered because it exists independently and is true regardless of whether we understand it
>>82839110
idiot

>>82839108
>Everything is predictable
No it's not it's why probability is a thing.
>Conflating physics with logic
lol. Logic is simply the study of "correct" reasoning. What is "discovered" in logic are basically all the different ways we humans will come to a consensus among one another about what type of argument or reasoning seems to produce something correct or true that nobody will deny. As long as your premises are "true" then any conclusion you draw from them must also be true no matter what, provided you made no mistakes along the way with your inferences.

>>82839070 (OP)
It's scary that I can actually recognize and understand most of this after taking an intro to logic class

>>82839147
Axioms aren't true independently. That's why you have different types of logic and different rules under which they operate. E.g. first-order logic is different from propositional logic. They are different formal systems. If you're going to call people idiots, then at least first know what you're talking about.

invented. same with math. same with morals. it's all invented

>>82839147
He is absolutely fucking correct, retard. Do you know how many different systems there are in modal logic (pic rel)? This is because nobody can agree on how to correctly think about concepts such as necessity and possibility and so there are a bunch of different axioms that encode different ways in which these two concepts can be thought of. And from these axioms you get a bunch of different logical systems. You can also manipulate these systems in such a way as to produce other kinds of logics as well (e.g. deontic logic, e.g. topological logic).

>>82839070 (OP)
Invented. Land can be discovered but concepts are never discovered, only invented.

>>82839182
Simple natural deduction, just in a particular style. It's all pretty simple, it just looks intimidating when you don't know what you're looking at at first.

you can invent logic (like Cyc)

>>82839108
>Humans didn't invent weak force, strong force, electromagnetism, and gravity
Yes we did. These are imperfect models we invented to help explain the actual underlying reality, don't confuse them with the actuality they attempt to explain.

in reality there is only the blobject. everything else is in your head

>>82839147
>it exists independently
Send me the coordinates of XOR.

>>82839256
Does x=x or not? The law of identity isn't invented retard. Even if axiomatic systems are invented by humans to a degree there do appear to be some fundamental laws of logic that exist independently of the systems we derive from them.

>but why does it always work
it doesn't!

>>82839282
>Does x=x or not?
Depends on how you've defined x and =, and the traditional interpretations apply to things we deal with on a day to day basis but not to quantum-scale operations. The law of identity is an assumption we've made that more or less applies to everything an ancient Greek dealt with in a lifetime but doesn't actually apply universally. It's invented (and useful!), not discovered.

>>82839070 (OP)
Logic is invented by nerds having buttsex
I have a very high IQ ;B

>>82839380
>depends on how you define x and =
Don't bullshit over the semantics. It's not ambiguous. Electron A is electron A. Electron A could never not be electron A. That's a]obviously absurd (reductio ad absurdum). At least in this instance, we find we have a basic law, we find that we both have an intuitive understanding of it, and oh look our intuitions are confirmed by very basic reasoning using RAA/proof by contradiction. And again, this in and of itself is just self-evident and intuitive. Clearly there is some objective feature to whatever the fuck this thing we call logic. Maybe not all of it is but there are just basic fucking things we find simply have to be true and literally can never be any other way. I'm not aware of any system of logic that would even deny identity.

>>82839070 (OP)
Invented. Sapience and consciousness is subjective to the human mind, what might be logical to us may not be logical to another intelligent species.

>>82839070 (OP)
Good place as any to ask this then
Why are we alive?

I'm not asking about the purpose of life or what we're supposed to do, I'm asking WHY are we alive?

>>82839515
Principle of SUFFICIENT reason not principle of normative reason

>>82839070 (OP)
Are you an idiot? Of course logic is discovered, how would LOGIC be invented??

>>82839539
i just want 200 posts of debate

>>82839528
What is the reason that we are alive then?
Not asking for the reason for life, I'm asking for the reason of existance in itself

>>82839570
existence as a concept?
>things are, more simple fact than i think therefore i am (being is)
>are-ness is separate from the things that are, but this are-ness takes the form of nothing since different types of things can be (nothing is)
>if you take what is and isn't, you get a kind of order (green things can be green for the same reason or different reasons) this is the notion of ground, or why things are the way they are
>so if you go back to your starting principle, that things are, you can establish that that things that are or are not are so for specific reasons. this matrix or what is and isn't is called existence.

>>82839491
You're begging the question by assuming electron A follows the law of identity in order to prove the law of identity. The math works just fine if all electrons and positrons are the same particle zipping forward and backward in time. Don't bring your newtonian intuition into particle physics, it doesn't apply.

>>82839653
It all goes back to "Because we are"
Thank you, anon

>>82839706
people don't have all the answers, you need to get over yourself

Invented.
Logic is a spook.
It is a mental construct that doesn't objectively exist.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean it isn't extremely useful as a tool.
Mathematics also is a mental construct, but it can be used as a tool to better understand objective reality even if mathematics isn't objectively real outside of our mental construction of it.

>>82839722
I don't seek answers
I don't seek at all

>>82839755
Actually, it's both. Logic is invented AND discovered. Case by case scenario. OP is 2vague4decisive conclusion

>>82839663
The one electron universe is literally just a thought experiment, not an actual hypothesis about the nature of electrons. Even so how does this disprove the law of identity? At best it shows that the electron relates to its own identity in different ways but electron A is still electron A. But this misses the point anyway. Let's take a more abstract example, like an integer. 2=2. 2 could never not be 2. If 2=/=2 then we have a contradiction. Clearly identity holds even for abstract non-logical objects like the number 2.
>inb4 reee numbers are relations or numbers are forms or numbers don't objectively exist reeee or reeeee [insert some metaphysical POV about the nature of math]
It literally doesn't matter that misses the point. Anyway you look at it, no matter how you square it, x always is the same thing as itself. If this were not the case, how could we speak? How could anything exist as a coherent unit? How could anything exist in the first place?
>inb4 paraconsistent logic
Alright so we can't use reductio to prove identity, again so what? The notion of identity continues to remain intuitive. If we can't prove it then we take it to be an axiom and we take it to be an axiom because we find that without it everything else collapses. It's not just that rejecting it leads to obvious absurdities, it's even when we don't assume contradictions produce absurdities we still find we end up intuitively with basically no meaningful way to talk about things or to even see how existence fundamentally holds. It's common fucking sense.

>>82839812
I don't agree with your assessment or lack of comprehension of the rather basic question.

There was no lack of clarity in the question.
However your response is wishy washy bullshit that says nothing while somehow at the same time being wrong.

>>82839889
it's not a good question because it depends on things being synthetic a priori true

>>82839889
The OP hasn't defined logic. Therefore, it's pointless to argue on this thread. Everyone has a different definition of "logic" in mind. It's a vast word

>>82839928
>>82839949
Nonsense.
You are just trolling after having your stupidity pointed out to take the sting out of it.

>>82840010
if cars by definition always work in theory then how can you say they were invented?

>>82840025
Seems you are fully committed to making a clown of yourself.

>>82840049
why? are you suggesting you need the right tools and resources to invent something?

>>82839845
Integers are also invented, so it would make sense that they were invented in a way that's consistent with other logical inventions.
>How could anything exist as a coherent unit?
It doesn't have to. We're the ones trying to force coherence onto existence.
>The notion of identity continues to remain intuitive.
Sure, and I'm not saying it's not a useful concept that applies well to most things we deal with in our day to day lives, but I am saying that it's a statistical artifact caused by patterns of behavior in quantum systems where individual parts *do not* follow this intuitive 'law'. You are attempting to apply a tool more universally than it was designed for.
>we end up intuitively with basically no meaningful way to talk about things or to even see how existence fundamentally holds.
That's our problem, reality doesn't need to exist in ways that are easy for us to discuss.

>>82839491
Who the fuck is this 'we' shit? if it's so "intuitive and self-evident" you should be able to speak for yourself, no?