Comments on: Is Logic Faith? http://w-shadow.com/blog/2008/02/19/is-logic-faith/ Slightly Advanced Computer Stuff (and some magic) Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:22:17 +0200 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: White Shadow http://w-shadow.com/blog/2008/02/19/is-logic-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-11349 White Shadow Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:27:06 +0000 http://w-shadow.com/blog/2008/02/19/is-logic-faith/#comment-11349 <blockquote>(...) the fact that we are here to observe rules is contingent upon the presence of those rules.</blockquote> That's a very good point. My intuition tells me there might still be some caveats, but I can't quite define them at the moment.

(…) the fact that we are here to observe rules is contingent upon the presence of those rules.

That’s a very good point. My intuition tells me there might still be some caveats, but I can’t quite define them at the moment.

]]> By: Andrew http://w-shadow.com/blog/2008/02/19/is-logic-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-11348 Andrew Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:50:45 +0000 http://w-shadow.com/blog/2008/02/19/is-logic-faith/#comment-11348 I agree that we wouldn't be able to identify the absense of rules in a universe without rules; however, the reason for this is not a failure of the way we seek those rules but the very fact that if the universe was not consistent then we would not exist. It isn't a matter of faith that there are rules, or a matter of assumption, but the fact that we are here to observe rules is contingent upon the presence of those rules. If the rules change we will either cease to exist or incorporate the change, and the fact that it was possible, into our view of the universe. It doesn't change the reasoning behind the existence of rules. I agree that we wouldn’t be able to identify the absense of rules in a universe without rules; however, the reason for this is not a failure of the way we seek those rules but the very fact that if the universe was not consistent then we would not exist.

It isn’t a matter of faith that there are rules, or a matter of assumption, but the fact that we are here to observe rules is contingent upon the presence of those rules.

If the rules change we will either cease to exist or incorporate the change, and the fact that it was possible, into our view of the universe. It doesn’t change the reasoning behind the existence of rules.

]]> By: White Shadow http://w-shadow.com/blog/2008/02/19/is-logic-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-11347 White Shadow Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:37:08 +0000 http://w-shadow.com/blog/2008/02/19/is-logic-faith/#comment-11347 I guess it could be said that I'm arguing semantics or somesuch. After all, the question whether there "actually" are rules is completely unimportant in any practical context. Pragmatically, it seems self-evident that there are rules and we can achieve results based on them. However, I disagree with this : <blockquote>I would argue that there isn’t even an initial assumption. Science operates on the basis that the universe operates and then tries to discover how by creating a a set of explanations, that we call rules, to explain it. If the universe operated differently, the ‘rules’ would be different, even if that meant that there was only one rule: that there are no rules.</blockquote> I still think that we wouldn't be able to correctly identify a situation when the Universe has no rules. Because ... *Humans look for rules, not their absence. We tend to see patterns even in a completely random stream of data. *We can't get enough data. The Universe might be appearing to follow a set of rules, until a random point in future when everything becomes chaos. We can't know whether this will happen unless we've traveled the entire timeline. *More fundamentally, we operate inside this universe. If it wouldn't have rules, we simply wouldn't be able to reliably detect this. Our own logic would be affected by the unpredictability of the universe. I guess it could be said that I’m arguing semantics or somesuch. After all, the question whether there “actually” are rules is completely unimportant in any practical context. Pragmatically, it seems self-evident that there are rules and we can achieve results based on them.

However, I disagree with this :

I would argue that there isn’t even an initial assumption. Science operates on the basis that the universe operates and then tries to discover how by creating a a set of explanations, that we call rules, to explain it. If the universe operated differently, the ‘rules’ would be different, even if that meant that there was only one rule: that there are no rules.

I still think that we wouldn’t be able to correctly identify a situation when the Universe has no rules. Because …
*Humans look for rules, not their absence. We tend to see patterns even in a completely random stream of data.
*We can’t get enough data. The Universe might be appearing to follow a set of rules, until a random point in future when everything becomes chaos. We can’t know whether this will happen unless we’ve traveled the entire timeline.
*More fundamentally, we operate inside this universe. If it wouldn’t have rules, we simply wouldn’t be able to reliably detect this. Our own logic would be affected by the unpredictability of the universe.

]]> By: Andrew http://w-shadow.com/blog/2008/02/19/is-logic-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-11345 Andrew Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:32:00 +0000 http://w-shadow.com/blog/2008/02/19/is-logic-faith/#comment-11345 The important difference for me is that on the one hand you have a conclusion that is based rational, logical, reasoning that can be reached simply by observing the environment and is open to amendment should it be contradicted, whereas, on the other hand you have faith in an irrational, illogical, concept that has no observable features at all and which cannot be questioned regardless of evidence to the contrary. The first isn't really faith at all is it? I commented on another blog about this article that one of the problems is that people end up arguing about semantics, i.e. if the universe follows rules then what makes it stick to those rules, who created them etc, I would argue that there isn't even an initial assumption. Science operates on the basis that the universe operates and then tries to discover how by creating a a set of explanations, that we call rules, to explain it. If the universe operated differently, the 'rules' would be different, even if that meant that there was only one rule: that there are no rules. The important difference for me is that on the one hand you have a conclusion that is based rational, logical, reasoning that can be reached simply by observing the environment and is open to amendment should it be contradicted, whereas, on the other hand you have faith in an irrational, illogical, concept that has no observable features at all and which cannot be questioned regardless of evidence to the contrary.

The first isn’t really faith at all is it?

I commented on another blog about this article that one of the problems is that people end up arguing about semantics, i.e. if the universe follows rules then what makes it stick to those rules, who created them etc,

I would argue that there isn’t even an initial assumption. Science operates on the basis that the universe operates and then tries to discover how by creating a a set of explanations, that we call rules, to explain it. If the universe operated differently, the ‘rules’ would be different, even if that meant that there was only one rule: that there are no rules.

]]>