Philosophers, what do you think about the statements below?
Logic is just a limitation of language capabilities. Logic consists of words. Who uses the word-is limited in the possibilities of their thinking and logical reasoning. Simply because some words that can describe our world with a different, no less objective assessment have not yet been invented. Thus, a new, more precise logic may not be available to us due to the lack of words, and not isolated phenomena in the surrounding world. Just as before there was no idea of the existence of other galaxies, so we have no idea of the existence of new words that will build a new logic.
Interesting question, thank you.
On the other hand, words don't fall from the sky either – they're made up to articulate some idea. So it's more accurate to say that we don't know about galaxies until we have an idea of galaxies, and only then do we come up with a word to express our idea of galaxies.
Therefore, philosophy, as a field of developing new meanings, remains the most promising direction of development in the history of mankind. This is an unexpected conclusion, even for me, but it suggests itself here.
HYPOTHESIS is a method of solving any problems of ignorance and misunderstanding.
The hypothesis allows you to develop-vocabulary, scheme, construction, logic, any theory and any method.
Logic is the connection of concepts, the relation and movement between them. We use words to describe logical relations, but logical relations themselves are objective and can be thought of directly by the mind.
You are saying that if there is no phenomenon in our experience, then there is no name for it, no corresponding word. But if in practice we do not encounter a phenomenon, then we do not need to name it – and as soon as we encounter it, we will invent a word.
We constantly encounter the logical relations between concepts directly in the process of thinking: we observe these forms within thinking itself when we look at it from the outside: “we think in categories.” What do we think? – what was fucked in the experiment. But how do we think? – in accordance with those categories that objectively express the connection of concepts.
In other words, we will separate the form and content for the answer: content is the concepts that we discuss, and form is the rules of reasoning. Our understanding of concepts is indeed tied to words and conditioned by experience, but logic as a process of thinking proceeds from itself: a contradiction will not become more or less contradictory if we somehow understand the word “contradiction”differently. Of course, we can refine our thinking and distinguish between the seventeen shades of contradiction, but: first we must feel this difference in our minds, and then we will find and assign seventeen words to express it.
Words are worthless. Words are signs, rough-hewn, angular symbols that can't convey even a hundredth part of what a person can feel.
A. Einstein wrote: “Logic will take you from point A to point B. Your imagination will take you anywhere.”
Logical thinking makes it possible to exist, imagination makes it possible to create.
Logic is the concept of perfection of manipulating words and thoughts to create semantic chains of causal relationships. Logic depends not only on the fullness of the internal library, but also on the possibility of intuitive thinking that creates in the mind a general figurative and conceptual picture of the topic under discussion.
If you want to describe the world objectively, then the only source of information is an experiment. This is evident from the success of the natural sciences. Logic is an abstract construction, not an experiment. So it is hopeless to expect anything meaningful from logic itself. Any productive science that can predict reality uses not so much a natural language as a special set of rules that have emerged from the need to explain experiments and are dictated by experimental facts. Some people identify this set of rules, such as mathematical rules, with logic. This is a false identification, since not all logic is consistent with specific scientific observations, there are no logical explanations for a number of scientific observations (and often they are not required for the functioning of scientific methods), and on the other hand, most scientific laws are not deduced logically, but obtained in an experiment. “The speed of light is constant.” Why? There is no logical explanation , just a fact. Therefore, I say that physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering prefer to use mathematics, diagrams, graphs, and other non-linguistic constructs that cannot be attributed to logic. These constructions are connected to each other and function according to their own special rules, which are much clearer than logical ones. The words here serve more as pointers to what non-linguistic methods should be used in specific circumstances. This is one problem with words – this is the language of communication in everyday life. It is not focused on precision and complex abstract methods. An even bigger problem has long been evident in physics: a number of phenomena, such as quantum phenomena, although perfectly described mathematically, cannot be clearly formulated in words, since they have no correspondence in everyday human sensory experience, which is mainly the source of language. That is, you can describe phenomena mathematically, but it is not clear how to reason about them. This is, generally speaking, a fiasco of logic, which is not yet consciously widespread only because of the weak mutual understanding of physicists and philosophers. Another problem is that the statements are linear and consistent, which imposes false relationships. Causality, for example. In physics, the concept of causality is not used, since it is not observed in experiments. Interactions are observed. In addition, logic generates syntactically plausible constructions based only on the knowledge available to us. You can't logically reliably predict the existence of something unknown. Physical theories can do this, but physics is not logic. It is checked empirically. You can try to describe the same phenomenon with different equations, but then choose the correct ones by experimental verification. Logical propositions are generally used without verification. Often, arguments use words whose meaning is understood in different ways, or cannot be understood at all (what does it mean to “understand”, for example, taking into account what has been said). Evaluating the validity of judgments, assessing whether experimental verification of a particular judgment is necessary, is not the strongest point of logic, so to speak.
Logic is just a limitation of language capabilities.
This is incorrect. If” just ” is substituted for “including”, then� is acceptable.
Logic consists of words. Who uses the word-is limited in the possibilities of their thinking and logical reasoning.
These two sentences strictly contradict each other in the part where the use of words restricts logical reasoning. Despite the fact that the logic consists entirely of words. And the fact that further explanations are given to this contradiction does not remove this internal contradiction itself. Here the author crams 2 slightly different concepts into the same term “words”. Using one or the other. But, while equating them.
The second sentence requires proof. They do not exist, and the following are just suggestions about possible causes. But again, it is not proven that they are essential.
Thus, a new, more precise logic may not be available to us due to the lack of words, and not isolated phenomena in the surrounding world
Here, the absence of words, which is a technical circumstance, is given an independent meaning, i.e., just a phenomenon isolated by the surrounding world. And then it is argued that they are not.
Just as before there was no idea of the existence of other galaxies, so we have no idea of the existence of new words that will build a new logic.
And finally it's just from the series “The sun is near, the village is far away”
If we evaluate the idea as a whole, then despite incorrect wording and many logical errors, it has the right to life. But with further development, it comes to the trivial. While we don't know everything, we don't know something. The richer the language, the greater the intellectual development it indicates. And all the more tools it provides for further intellectual development. Here it may seem that in this way the development of logic and language should increase exponentially. But experience shows – no, this happens only up to a certain point. This suggests that this point occurs when the material is exhausted. Thus, there is reason to believe that our current vocabulary is close to sufficient.
When our masters of the world change, I will inform you all about it, but I think it's not soon and not at all soon.
These are not statements, but wishlist items. No one will ask us and they don't ask us what we want here, we are stupidly used to our advantage, like any tool and no more. As for logic, it is in the likeness of the creators and the world order too, as well as the relationship between us and the light we have only from the sun and no religion like the sun of Christ and his father, all that is in your mind and no more. The game is such a religion, league of the chosen ones, as in the game's comps.
Yes, logical chains and there are a lot of them and geometry figures are also logic, as well as numbers in different measures, decimal, binary, etc. This is also logic,this is all from our creators of the world.
There is something else, but it has nothing to do with logic, there is a completely different principle and we are not in danger of using it, because technogenic biorobots cannot be entities, moreover free, especially in this world.