I have no need to, that is my point. We cannot know if it exists outside of our realm of knowledge. I do not delve into such philosophies for that reason. Look at my avatar.



I also do not deny the possibilities.

Oh but you certainly do need to if it's your claim that such premises exist and can be used for such a foundation.

You stated:



Now your saying that you don't need to produce a concrete example.

That's the same as saying that you don't need to back up your claim.

If you can't come up with a meaningful premise associated with the true nature of reality that is supported by knowledge, then you have no basis for making the claim that not all premises are guesses in this context go unsupported by knowledge.

The only way you can support your claim is to produce a premise that is supported by knowledge. If you can't do that, then there is no reason to believe that you are spewing anything other than an unsubstantiated opinion based on pure faith.

You may as well say that there exists a God, but you don't need to prove it.

You have NOTHING.

Especially in terms of any "logical" grounds for anything.

Logic is useless in the quest for the answer to the riddle of life.

Ignorantly brazen of you my friend. You speak as though you are aware of my knowledge base. You have not fared very well in the past taking that stance because you are not.

Define 'the true nature of reality'.

I *do* find it interesting though how you took my quote completely out of context in an attempt to bolster your claim here - which amounts to a misrepresentation of our conversation.

Big surprise.

How many times do I need to repeat that we cannot know how the universe began if it is outside of our frame of reference? That is not the only kind of philosophy, James. I will, however, continue this section which you feel - for whatever reason - that you must pursue. Here is your big chance to nail me to the wall. Good luck.

Define 'the true nature of reality' so we can proceed in an intelligible fashion.

Hilbert's Second Problem

From PamPerdue on askville...

http://askville.amazon.com/reason-logic-limits/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=4033873

The word "existence" has at least two important meanings here, and logic has limitations on both of them. I’m going to call them "level 1" and "level 2"

In level 1, "existence" means "basic physics", an objective reality of the world that is completely independent of human beings. Particles move around in certain highly constrained ways, all of which are extremely well explained mathematically.

At level 2, "existence" is a very human concept, the way human beings perceive the world.

Some would argue that level 2 can be entirely explained in terms of level 1 and is therefore not Real Existence, but that’s oversimplifying. We ourselves exist at level 2, and have absolutely no way to perceive level 1 directly. "Logic" itself is really a humanization of what's going on at level 1, a tool that happens to fit despite serious weaknesses.

Further, we don't really truly understand how level 2 is explained in terms of level 1, but only assert that it can be. We know more every day, but today applying the logic of level 1 to level 2 is sketchy at best.

The failures of logic at level 2 are obvious. Humans are not rational creatures, not even remotely. We find even the trivial Sudoku too much of a challenge, much less the eminently logical game of chess. Some of our behavior is motivated by the pitiless logic of reality, but those are only general heuristics that fail often.

The failures of logic at level 1 are more subtle and complicated. It's a relatively recent discovery, in fact. Logicians in the 20th century set out to prove that logic is self-consistent, that all of the logical things in the universe are, in fact, provable, but it turns out to be false. It's called Godel's Theorem, and I find it endlessly fascinating.

The unprovable things turn out to involve strange infinities and may not in fact relate to the objective universe at all, but only to logic itself. Still, the limitations of logic demonstrate that logic itself is a Level 2 artifact, not a truth of the universe.

The problem of where level 1 ends and level 2 begins is called "epistemology", and we're still struggling with it. I believe that there are resolutions to the contradictions, but to get there we're going to have to know a lot more about how the brain (level 2) functions as an artifact of the universe (level 1). When we do that we may be able to untwist the internal contradictions of logic itself and really know the universe. But that's not today.

Sources: Professional logician (really)

This isn't about you. It's about logic. I don't need to know anything about you on a personal level. I'm speaking solely about the capabilities and capacity of logic.



I already went through this just a couple of posts ago. And I gave precise concrete examples.

Moreover, it's actually erroneous to ask what the "True Nature of Reality" is, until we've acknowledged what we even mean by "Reality". There's no sense in speaking about it's "True Nature" until we've established just what it is that we are talking about. Then we can ask questions about its "True Nature".

So to repeat myself from a few posts ago:

In classical times, it was believed that the physical universe is all that exists (specifially in the philosophy of Spinoza and other classical philosophers). In other words, it was believed that the physical universe is indeed eternal and basically "unchanging" in it's overall properties (abeit it changes in form over time).

So in that philosophy the very concept of "Reality" is the physical universe, period. The universe IS reality in that picture. Therefore we can then move on to ask about it's "True Nature" because now we know just what it is that we are asking about.

In fact, this line of thinking is precisely what science and physics is all about. This is the approach that science is based on. It's the "Scientific Method" of observation and logical deductions from those observations.

But all that has changed in modern times.

As ironic as it may seem, our observations of the physical universe have lead us to several inescapable conclusions. First, was the discovery that the universe is not eternal but it actually came into existence several billions of years ago. Therefore, scientific observations and logical deductions also bring us to the conclusion that whatever gave rise to this physical universe is not the same as this physical universe. In other words, we know have no choice but to accept that "reality" consists of more than just this physical universe.

This is a major difference from the days of Spinoza and the simpler philosophies.

Now if we're going to ask, "What is the true nature of reality, the answer to that question must include a description of the "nature" of all existence including whatever exists "outside" of this physical universe that actually gave rise to its existence.

Moreoever, it doesn't stop there. Modern science has also uncovered via observation and experiment that whatever "reality" existed before the big bang, is still around at the smallest foundational level of this universe. It still continues to pervade this universe and have measurable and observable affects on the behavior of this universe.

Scientists have called the nature of this other reality "The Quantum Field". And many people might argue that the so-called "Quantum Field" is just a man-made construct. An idea of the mind. That may be true in terms of vocabulary. However, in terms of the logical fact that this mysterious quantum field does indeed have measurable and observable effects on the behavior of this universe, clearly shows that no matter what label we give it, it's "real" (i.e. its effects can be observed and experienced)

So now when we ask "What is the true nature of reality?", we have no choice but to include the mysterious forces and actions that defy what we even think of as being "logical".

The very meaning of what constitutes "Reality" has changed drastically since the days of Spinoza. And therefore the question of the "True Nature of Reality" has also grown to encompass all that exists whether it exists within this physical world, or beyond. Especially if that "other reality" is what gave rise to the "reality" that we currently refer to as the "physical universe".

So in these modern times when we ask about the "True Nature of Reality" we are asking for an explanation of the nature of, not only what we clearly see around us in a physical sense, but of everything that may have contributed to bringing that into being.

Finally, modern science has also observed (and it's even been mathematically confirmed and experimentally verified), that it is impossible for us to determine the "True Nature" of things like the quantum field, using physical methods. And the problem is that since we are physical beings residing within the physical form, all that we have available to us are physical means.

Now you might say, "Oh but we also have LOGIC!". But that's totally irrelevant because our whole notion of logic is based upon our physical experience within the confines of spacetime. Remove the restraints of our spacetime limitations and all-of-sudden we would be able to do a myriad of things that we currently deem to be "illogical".

Therefore, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to even imagine that logic should apply to the quantum realm (or the realm of reality that existed before the Big Bang).

Our whole notion of "Logic" is based on spacetime restraints.

So here's the bottom line:

1. Modern science and logic have shown us that spacetime is not all of "reality".

2. Our very sense of "logic" does not apply outside of the restraints of spacetime.

Therefore to claim that logic is important or required for any philosophical contemplations concerning the "True Nature of Reality", is to either refuse to acknowledge the limitations of logic, or refuse to acknowledge that "Reality" must necessarily include the realms of existence that actually brought our spacetime into existence.

Logic cannot go beyond the boundaries of spacetime, because the very stucture and form of logical syllogisms is based on the limitations of spacetime. Take away those limitations and logic no longer has any value or meaning.

Logic is based on cause and effect. "IF P THEN Q". But those syllogisms simply may not apply to the parts of reality that exist outside of spacetime. In fact, observations (or logical deductions) concerning both the big bang, and the quantum field basically demand that those arenas cannot be restrained by what we deem to be "logical".

So when I say that your claims about logic and reality are incorrect and without any substance, I'm not making any personal assessments about you personally. It's totally irrelevant what you think you might know or not know. The bottom line is that your claim that logic is important for philosophical discussions concerning the nature of our existence simply doesn't hold water.

The "True Nature of Reality" may very well be completely beyond the scope of anything that we deem to be "logical". And the observations of modern science have pretty much demanded that this must necessarily be so.

Therefore your constant harping on the importance of logic in philosophy is totally ungrounded. You probably got that idea from some educational institution that still teaches that logic has some ultimate power. Academia is one of the slowest instiutions we have when it comes to change. They cling to old ideals for a very long time before coming to the realization that these things just no longer have the power they were once believed to have.

In the modern world, we just have no reasons left to believe that the underlying foundation of all that exists must adhere to anything that we consider to be "logical". We just have nothing to support that old ideal. To the contrary, modern scientific observations have given us every reason to believe that it can't be supported.

So this isn't about you at all, on a personal level. But it is about your constant and unwaivering claims that logic is somehow paramount to philosophy. That just doesn't appear to be the case anymore, at least not when the philosophy that is being discussed is concerned with the "True Nature of Reality".

Logic no longer has any clout with respect to these deepest questions.

Do you have a shorter definition?



Aw, James....

Be well, my friend.

Holy crap ... ! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz ...

It's all about me, me me me!!!!


I'm right... I know this because.....

Been there, done that, why even bother???

Yes, it's hard for most people to accept. Everyone wants to believe that there's a 'rational' explanation somewhere. In fact, this was probably one of the foundational desires that drove mankind to create gods. We can't figure it out, so there must be a god that has all the answers.

But the truth is that there may very well be no logical answers. In fact, scientific observations have shown us that this is indeed the most likely case. The true nature of reality is most likely totally "illogical" by our way of thinking.

After all, our whole notion of logic is based on the physical world. Take away the laws of physics and our sense of logic no longer applies. But we have no reason to believe that the foundational reality beneath all of existence obeys any laws of physics. In fact, we have a myriad of evidence to the contrary.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz ... mmphr ... snork ... gakkkkkk ... zzzzzzzz ...

I'm not surprise.

People who claim to be logical and rational often suggest that people who believe in spirits or gods are in need of some sort of crutch and can't handle 'reality'.

However, what is actually true is that people who demand that things always be rational and logical are the ones who can't let go of that crutch.

That bottom line is that all humans are in the same boat whether they are willing to acknowledge it or not. No one knows the answer to the riddle of life.

So fall asleep if you must, but that won't change a thing. May as well face it head-on with eyes wide open.

Abra,

I think your explanation was very interesting, and even logical.

And for those of you who are asleep... (zzzzzzz),

If you want to define "reality" as just this physical universe and stick to the idea that it has always existed then perhaps you can begin to study the "true nature" of physical reality. Of course I would really like to hear a concise definition of "physical reality."

But I suspect there is more than one universe, and maybe even more than one 'physical' universe. Now I would like to know what people would define as "physical" and what their points of references would be.

I suspect there are other "material" universes (as apposed to physical) whose integrity is entirely relative to the observers (the inhabitants) of that universe. By integrity, I mean their mass,stability and duration of existence, in relation to our own spacetime duration, etc. In the case of evaluating other realities, or other universes we of course would be inclined to use ourselves as a reference point... and why not? We ARE the observers.

Time is not the same there as it is here. Even in space.

gggkkksnorpf ... zzzzmmpphhh ... sssssknxxxxx ... zzzz ...

Whaaa ... ? No mommy - I CAN'T be late for school - I quit school ... zzzzzzsnkxxxx ... gkkkkkk ... time here not like time there ... zzzzsnnnxxx ... snorpppp ... hypothetical assumption ... kkkkkgllllxxxx ... not provable ... zzzzzppppstsknnnxxxx ... zzzzzzzzz ...

It's not a hypothetical assumption at all. On the contrary it's been proven about as well as anything we know. Even time within our so-called "physical universe" is malleable. This was one of the greatest things that has been revealed by Einstein's Realitivity, and then verified to be an actual "measurable property" of the world.

Moreover, the current theories of the big bang have spacetime itself coming into existence with the birth of our physical universe. So it would actually be just the opposite of what you suggest. It would be a compeltely unprovable hypothetical assumption to suggest that time as we experience it should be applicable anywhere other than as a property of the spacetime in which we reside.

I'm starting to realize that many people who place huge importance on logic actually have no clue about what is genuinely already known.

Finally, not only has the fabric of our spacetime been shown to be malleable in and of itself, but we also have experimental observations and results that show that the property of the substrate (that we call the quantum field) that lies beneath our 'spacetime' actually exhibits properties of total non-locality (i.e. instantaneous action-at-a-distance) which defies the notion of time altogether.

So to believe that time has any meaning at all beyond the scope of spacetime is to genuinely ignore the observations of modern science altogether and live in the past mindset of a "Newtonian World".

So there's nothing hypothetical about Jeanniebean's statement at all. On the contrary it's well-established and highly verified scientific knowledge.

Man this thread is full of armchair science, and armchair philosophy.

Dare I even engage? I think not . . . I think the standard for establishing fact from fiction is a little too blurry.

I mean this thread is titled: Evidence . . .

Sometimes I wonder what these threads would be like if everyone said exactly what they think.

Honestly reading this thread makes me want to mandate homework for anyone using the word logic. There are many types of logic, most are mutually exclusive, and I can think of no knowledge that can be had without some kind of logic.

You must specify what kind of logic, and why what you are referring to cannot be constructed logically, and use mathematics to explain yourself, please show your work.

I predict lots of play acting, not much substance.

Your very demands are unwarranted.

You say, "use mathematics to explain yourself, please show your work."

But where's your "evidence" that anything should adhere to the formal constructs of mathematics? Mathematics itself stands upon unprovable and questionable axioms.

You're placing all your faith in a manmade construct that may have absolutely no application to anything "real". You belief in mathematics is no different from someone else's belief in a god. All you saying is that you put your faith in the mathematicians.

Mathematical formalism is based on an idea of a continuum anyway, now we've discovered that we live in a quantum world and that the very idea that things were ever continuous was a bogus idea to begin with. Mathematical formalism itself is in need of a major reassessment. There is no logical reason to belief that mathematics should have anything at all to do with the true nature of reality.

You're just attempting to push your "God" (i.e. your faith in mathematics) onto everyone else. But where's your evidence that mathematics should apply to anything outside of spacetime? Or even be depended upon to correctly describe all of spacetime itself for that matter?