https://iai.tv/articles/logic-is-nothing-without-metaphysic-auid-3064?utm_source=reddit&_auid=2020
created by IAI_Admin on 31/01/2025 at 10:50 UTC
103 upvotes, 15 top-level comments (showing 15)
Comment by AutoModerator at 31/01/2025 at 10:50 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read our updated rules and guidelines[1] before commenting**.
1: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our subreddit rules and guidelines[2], please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please contact the moderators via modmail[3] (not via private message or chat).
2: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
3: https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
4: /message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
Comment by [deleted] at 31/01/2025 at 16:47 UTC
51 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by Sabotaber at 31/01/2025 at 11:53 UTC*
39 upvotes, 6 direct replies
In computer science the algorithms for path finding, parsing context-free languages, and various kinds of logic solvers, are all variations on a concept from graph theory called depth-first search. In my personal experience I have found that developing algorithms is a deeply introspective process that centers around asking the question "how do I personally solve these problems?" and then explaining my internal processes precisely enough for a computer to simulate them. From this experience I believe the abilities to plan a route, to understand language, and to do many forms of logic, all have at least a biological mechanism that is comparable to depth-first search and other graph theory concepts. Furthermore I have noticed that when I improve one of those abilities within myself, that always confers improvements to the others. The brain seems to be reusing that neural circuitry, or publishing improvements to various instances of that neural circuitry. Because of some nonsense to do with NP-completeness and how it relates to using graph theory to solve problems, I know this cannot be a total explanation of what's happening, but I do believe it is a good explanation of a lot of what's happening.
I really like playing with quarterstaffs. One of the curious things I've noticed about them is that what allows you to control it is that where one motion ends, many others begin. This is another expression of graph theory that is equivalent to a finite automaton, so closely related to things like regular expressions. When I am performing a motion with my staff I have until the motion ends to decide which motion to perform next. In this way I am using a simplified description of the staff's motions to direct it. This lines up with my belief that logic, or symbolic reasoning, is actually a heuristic that we use to quickly reason about complex situations by exploiting patterns we've extracted from our observations.
What interests me about logic is motivated by practical concerns: How closely does my heuristic model actually match reality? Do I need to worry about mismatches, or can I keep a guiding hand on what I'm doing to account for errors? Is my process something I can teach, or do I have to take the role of an auteur? If I must be an auteur to do something, will it be a huge problem that the bus factor is 1? All of this boils down to the ethical concerns I have about using The Engineer's Flippant Perspective On Epistemology(TEFPOE): If you used something to do something, then you used something to do something.
Comment by Nigel_Mckrachen at 31/01/2025 at 17:37 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The conjecture I see here, about the very foundation upon which logic rests, reminds me so much of the work of Alfred Tarski around language paradoxes (This sentence is false). He essentially solved this by creating a metalanguage. However, an equivalent paradox could be created in his metalanguage, solvable only by the creation of a newer meta-metalanguage. This chain continues infinitely. This work led to Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which in a sense, is saying that our axiomatic rules are true only because we assign truth to them with nothing else holding up the turtle.
Am I off target here? (I'm not a scientist, let alone a logician).
Comment by No-Eggplant-5396 at 31/01/2025 at 13:22 UTC
9 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I thought it worked like this:
1. If Socrates is man, then Socrates is mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.
2. If the pizza is Hawaiian, then that pizza is an abomination. The pizza is a Hawaiian. Therefore the pizza is an abomination.
We posit that the two arguments have similar structure. We classify arguments that have this structure as valid. The justification for this classification is custom or repetition or that we have never observed an error with this type of classification.
Comment by Kr0x0n at 31/01/2025 at 11:33 UTC
10 upvotes, 1 direct replies
We need antilogic to prove logic
Comment by MerryWalker at 31/01/2025 at 18:10 UTC*
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So clickbait article title aside, this is an interesting discussion of Hegel, and as I’m not a Hegel scholar I feel I have learned something interesting about his take on what I would call Ontology in the context of his philosophy. I think the point about metaphysics, however, makes sense as an archaeological interpretation of how we have come to the position we have today more than it does an accurate picture of things as they now are.
The turn from metaphysics happens significantly further down the chain, when we come to understand that the plurality of the world outstrips the simple individual perspective. That is to say, the “psychologistic” view, that there is not one single true way to think but we develop new faculties as we grow and explore and test and refine and observe them in others, is right, and the idea of a single true metaphysics cannot withstand the desert of the real.
But this does not mean that logic has no foundation or even that such a foundation is only given by metaphysics and that logic therefore cannot function. What we have, rather, is **protocol** - similar to metaphysics but which is understood to be malleable and amenable to reframing, vulnerable to human bias and heuristic and thus potentially fallible, contextual and thus reflective of local differences of opinion and experience but equally revisable as part of the wider empirical paradigm of proposing models and submitting them to tests of operational effectiveness.
Logic, too, can be understood as plural, in as much as it helps us navigate the modality of truth and consequence in the variations of protocol, and a skilful logician understands not just the rules within protocols but also both their commonalities and inter-operations, and their variations and nuances, and is capable of operating, reasoning and negotiating within and across them. While one should, in order to be efficacious, understand and use the logic of one’s own frame of reference clearly and accurately, in fact this is rarely the mode in which we operate - far more often do we sit in virtual worlds of language games and social simulacra, and the ability to critically recognise, engage with, and also keep at arms length without losing agency over them is equally important as a person in the world.
What’s more, the logic we apply to ourselves often comes *later*, informed by what we experience, and when we turn it back inwards we often find new forms of reason, observation and being than we originally understood.
So logic clearly can exist as a discipline founded in something important, and I believe the dismissal of the psychologist’s view is carried out too quickly here.
Comment by Visible_Composer_142 at 01/02/2025 at 17:57 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Bruh idgaf his last album was ok. It had a feature from Seth McFarland.
Comment by garry4321 at 31/01/2025 at 16:46 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
This whole article reads like a Terrance Howard speech.
No, just no
Comment by Majorjim_ksp at 31/01/2025 at 17:38 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This is hysterical nonsense.
Comment by [deleted] at 31/01/2025 at 16:03 UTC*
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by JokeJedi at 31/01/2025 at 20:05 UTC*
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Logic is the result of stacking static definitions.
When the static definitions are more meta than physical or actual.
Logistics will point to the feed back loops and how the stacked pattern will conclude if the course is maintained and unchanged.
Logistics cant exist without probables.
But probables have to eventually concede to logistics when probables threaten the entire colony.
Probables will always have the upper hand.
Giving logistics the incredibly difficult task of challenging probables without weapons.
While probables will maintain voracity with violence, whether it be verbal or psychological, or physical with fines, censorship, or even harm and weapon use.
Deception is always on the table, because it’s probable.
Logistics is forced to isolate or dominate, as it has no room for the probable, if the probable don’t voluntary concede in reciprocation.
Logistics has no room for deception, it’s too improbable.
History is filled with isolationists and dictators.
All dictators who tried playing the probable game and applied their logic, lead to mass casualty events.
And the majority being probable will follow the leader, but will take creative agency in reinterpreting the message, for the comfort of status quo.
Comment by Sad-Welcome-8048 at 31/01/2025 at 15:27 UTC
-2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Logic has no foundation, except in the most accurate and applicable model of reality we have.
Youre point is what with this?
Comment by teo_vas at 31/01/2025 at 12:10 UTC
-14 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I agree. if you want to be anti-metaphysics you must embrace anti-rationalism and anti-logic
Comment by [deleted] at 31/01/2025 at 13:07 UTC
-14 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]