Verifying logic

[Drox]

How do we know logic is true? Because logic says it is.

Seems circular...

[Struwwelpeter]

What do you have against circles?

[Drox]

They have no point.

[Village Idiot]

Originally Posted by Drox

How do we know logic is true? Because logic says it is.

Seems circular...

And other cliches.

[Struwwelpeter]

You want to look at pointy objects; like dicks, not circular ones; like holes.

[Village Idiot]

Originally Posted by Drox

But a cliche has truth to it, that's why it's called a cliche.

Which in itself is a cliche.
Mankind was meant for circles, first of all. We are supposed to be performing the same tasks every day in the same way. Repetition is kee to our survival. If we do not perform the same function each day, such as going to work, listening to metal, recycling your bodily fluids via the mouth, dying just to live again, repeat what the closest person next to you is doing, or repeating everything you hear on Fox News, commercial radio, commercials, advertisements, rap artists, carousels, salesmen, your parents, priests and police officers then you will surely go completely insane and die for being a heathen. Good luck burning in hell, you heathen motherfucker. Piece of shit heathen.

[crazzyass]

You misunderstand logic. Logic isn't true because it says it is, it's defined as truth.

For instance, 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 because "math says it does", math says it does because you can define 2 as being 1 and 1.

If p, then q.

P.

Therefore, q.

You're defining the sequence and then putting the same sequence in motion, so to speak. If every time there is p, there is q, and it's defined that way, then the logic is true because it adapts to that truth.

You can't declare thing true with logic. Logic must line up with reality.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

You misunderstand logic. Logic isn't true because it says it is, it's defined as truth.

For instance, 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 because "math says it does", math says it does because you can define 2 as being 1 and 1.

If p, then q.

P.

Therefore, q.

You're defining the sequence and then putting the same sequence in motion, so to speak. If every time there is p, there is q, and it's defined that way, then the logic is true because it adapts to that truth.

You can't declare thing true with logic. Logic must line up with reality.

Logic was initially used for philosophical questions that have no bearing or existence in objective reality, such as the ideas of the "greatest good" or what the purpose of life is.

[Struwwelpeter]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

You misunderstand logic. Logic isn't true because it says it is, it's defined as truth.

For instance, 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 because "math says it does", math says it does because you can define 2 as being 1 and 1.

If p, then q.

P.

Therefore, q.

You're defining the sequence and then putting the same sequence in motion, so to speak. If every time there is p, there is q, and it's defined that way, then the logic is true because it adapts to that truth.

You can't declare thing true with logic. Logic must line up with reality.

You will look back at that post three years from now and feel embarrassed to the point of suicide.

[Village Idiot]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Logic was initially used for philosophical questions that have no bearing or existence in objective reality, such as the ideas of the "greatest good" or what the purpose of life is.

What a load of nigger shit. WHAT. A. LOAD. OF. NIGGER. SHIT.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Logic was initially used for philosophical questions that have no bearing or existence in objective reality, such as the ideas of the "greatest good" or what the purpose of life is.

And? It's internally consistent. It doesn't require a universe or anything to operate in, other than itself. The OP asked about verification. Objective logic is verifiable; most of the ideas you mentioned are not, like you said.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

And? It's internally consistent. It doesn't require a universe or anything to operate in, other than itself. The OP asked about verification. Objective logic is verifiable; most of the ideas you mentioned are not, like you said.

You idea was that logic must always correspond to reality, when in fact it was a system that was initially used to think into the abstract one step at a time, further away from objective reality.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

You idea was that logic must always correspond to reality, when in fact it was a system that was initially used to think into the abstract one step at a time, further away from objective reality.

Yes, logic must correspond to reality. If I deduce that it will not rain today, and it rains, then my logic was faulty somewhere down the line.

Don't misinterpret that as saying that logic relies on reality; like I said (twice now), logic is internally consistent. But if you make a deduction or inference or whatever with it and you're proven wrong, then your logic was incorrect.

[LSA King]

I want to know, who the fuck said logic was true? Saying it's true is like saying it's correct and that's not often the case. Logic changes and grows with understanding and often times logic may say true, but the answer is actually the false of logic. Computers are all about logic and whether it's right or wrong makes no difference, it depends on how the logic is defined.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Yes, logic must correspond to reality. If I deduce that it will not rain today, and it rains, then my logic was faulty somewhere down the line.

Don't misinterpret that as saying that logic relies on reality; like I said (twice now), logic is internally consistent. But if you make a deduction or inference or whatever with it and you're proven wrong, then your logic was incorrect.

Human behavior oftentimes falls outside of the realm of logic.

[cowtipper]

what about paradoxes??? that uses lots of logic and inspires thoought

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Drox

How do we know logic is true? Because logic says it is.

Seems circular...

How do you know that the right thing to do is to collect $200 when you past Go, in Monopoly? These are rules, axioms. You either play by those rules or you don't. The rules of logic are such that they are consistent with each other (i.e. the rules don't contradict each other). That's it.

They don't say anything in particular about the world is true or not. We do that. We take objects we want to reason about and put them into the variables that the system of logic utilizes. So this...

P -> Q.
P
-
Q

...becomes this...

If Socrates is human, then he is a mortal.
Socrates is human.
-
Socrates is mortal.

[Drox]

I get that the system of logic has rules.

I want to know how we know they're true.

My point is that to explain why the rules of logic are true, you have to use logic, which seems like circular logic.

[Rust]

I'm saying that question doesn't make sense. What do you mean how do we know they are true? Logic is a set of rules. You either use them or you don't. There's no "truth" inherent in them.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Human behavior oftentimes falls outside of the realm of logic.

Such as?

[Drox]

Originally Posted by Rust

I'm saying that question doesn't make sense. What do you mean how do we know they are true? Logic is a set of rules. You either use them or you don't. There's no "truth" inherent in them.

I'm asking how we know those rules are valid.

How do we verify them? We explain them.....using logic.

Using logic to prove logic....circular logic.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Such as?

Such as people on bath salts eating other people.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Such as people on bath salts eating other people.

On the contrary, biochemistry has very well-established, logical laws.

[Zanick]

I feel like this is going to become a matter of free will vs. determinism.

[komokazi]

logic is real. I've seen her before.

[Rust]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this discussion has absolutely not a fucking thing to do with verifying logic. Please stop.

[CarbonBV2]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

You misunderstand logic. Logic isn't true because it says it is, it's defined as truth.

For instance, 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 because "math says it does", math says it does because you can define 2 as being 1 and 1.

If p, then q.

P.

Therefore, q.

You're defining the sequence and then putting the same sequence in motion, so to speak. If every time there is p, there is q, and it's defined that way, then the logic is true because it adapts to that truth.

You can't declare thing true with logic. Logic must line up with reality.

Wrong. The reason 1 + 1 = 2 is because of a set of rules defined before we even start discussing "math". Before you can even talk about "truth" or "logic" you need to talk about the tools defined by both parties, called axioms. We apply meaning, because without it we couldn't communicate effectively.