Creationist offers $10K to prove Bible wrong

[ZaneNBK]

Not to sidestep your question, but I thought I would elaborate on what Cerpin Taxt said in regards to tautology.

The nature of tautology is such so that the same thing holds true in every possible interpretation of it. In the very simple example of A=A, there is no universe, multiverse, polyverse, heaven, hell, cosmic dimension, etc. where the formula doesn't hold to be true. No matter what physical constraints you're dealing with, A=A is still true.

There are an infinite number of tautologies. This is pure logic.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

We have physical and logical universes, which are not automatically the same.

They are never the same. Logical universes are the maps, and the physical universe is the territory.

Perhaps this is like using mathematical spaces to represent higher ones in which our universe correspond such as de sitter spaces.

I don't know much about de sitter spaces, but if you can understand the difference between a symbol and the thing that a symbol represents, you can understand the difference between logical and physical universes.

How about this? Is there any reason to believe that our logical constraints which we use to evaluate our reality and are necessary for comprehension, that which makes sense, dictates that other physically existing universes (although at some point "exist" may be hard to quantify once we throw A=A under the bus) MUST also be logically consistent to our satisfaction?

The physical universe is necessarily logically consistent. There is no such thing as an logically inconsistent physical universe. The physical universe is the territory from which we draw our maps. If the territory and the map disagree, it isn't the territory that is in error.

 

[Gibsons]

There is no such thing as an logically inconsistent physical universe.

But what if there is. Where the speed of light is a negative and 2+2=5 and 5-2=42.

 

[Juddog]

But what if there is. Where the speed of light is a negative and 2+2=5 and 5-2=42.

Best to add the /sarcasm tag.

 

[Gibsons]

Best to add the /sarcasm tag.

Well, I wasn't being entirely sarcastic (the 42 is kind of a hint I guess).

Another universe might have a completely different logic than our own, I don't think there's any way to know.

Plus this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The physical universe is necessarily logically consistent. There is no such thing as an logically inconsistent physical universe. The physical universe is the territory from which we draw our maps. If the territory and the map disagree, it isn't the territory that is in error.

OK, I see your meaning I think. Regarding logical consistencies, are there conflicting logics? Yeah I'm dumb. I'm trying to get at the limits of human comprehension and how our understanding of logics corresponds to a set of all possibilities. To give some substance consider other animals with central nervous systems. Let's take a dog, which has structural similarities to our own. We aren't alike in all ways, but the basic anatomical structures are there, and dogs have rudimentary reasoning skills. Even so our logical constructs would be wholly inaccessible to them. I don't mean that the logic is less valid, but how would such a creature evaluate A=A? Obviously a reality exists for them, and THE reality we share in common, but... ah screw it, I need a nap

 

[DougK62]

WTF. I came in here expecting a flame war and I was tricked in to learning stuff. Is ATOT growing up?

 

[Fritzo]

WTF. I came in here expecting a flame war and I was tricked in to learning stuff. Is ATOT growing up?

Well...YOU'RE A DOO DOO HEAD!!!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

OK, I see your meaning I think. Regarding logical consistencies, are there conflicting logics?

Well, there are bivalent logics (True/False), trivalent logics (True/Indeterminate/False), Fuzzy logic where truth is a continuum between 1 (true) and 0 (false), Modal logic (Necessarily true, possibly true, possibly false, and necessarily false), and such. That's just propositional logic. Technically, all of math is logic, so you can have any number of axiomatic systems.

It is difficult to say that these logical systems "conflict" with one another. The measures of truth within a given system only have meaning within the system. A true statement formulated according to the rules of one system might be false or even meaningless when evaluated according to the truth criteria of a different system, but that doesn't mean that they "conflict," IMO.

I wouldn't say that the rules of chess "conflict" with the rules of checkers. They're just two different games. Now, if you tried to move your bishop diagonally while playing checkers, you're going to have a hard time, but that isn't a problem with the rules, but rather a problem with the player.

Yeah I'm dumb. I'm trying to get at the limits of human comprehension and how our understanding of logics corresponds to a set of all possibilities. To give some substance consider other animals with central nervous systems. Let's take a dog, which has structural similarities to our own. We aren't alike in all ways, but the basic anatomical structures are there, and dogs have rudimentary reasoning skills. Even so our logical constructs would be wholly inaccessible to them. I don't mean that the logic is less valid, but how would such a creature evaluate A=A? Obviously a reality exists for them, and THE reality we share in common, but... ah screw it, I need a nap

Surely animals reason, but strictly speaking reason isn't the same as logic. Logic is formalized reason. All logic is reason, therefore, but not all reason is logic.

 

[Juddog]

Well, there are bivalent logics (True/False), trivalent logics (True/Indeterminate/False), Fuzzy logic where truth is a continuum between 1 (true) and 0 (false), Modal logic (Necessarily true, possibly true, possibly false, and necessarily false), and such. That's just propositional logic. Technically, all of math is logic, so you can have any number of axiomatic systems.

It is difficult to say that these logical systems "conflict" with one another. The measures of truth within a given system only have meaning within the system. A true statement formulated according to the rules of one system might be false or even meaningless when evaluated according to the truth criteria of a different system, but that doesn't mean that they "conflict," IMO.

I wouldn't say that the rules of chess "conflict" with the rules of checkers. They're just two different games. Now, if you tried to move your bishop diagonally while playing checkers, you're going to have a hard time, but that isn't a problem with the rules, but rather a problem with the player.


Surely animals reason, but strictly speaking reason isn't the same as logic. Logic is formalized reason. All logic is reason, therefore, but not all reason is logic.

This may sound like an old fart question, but when did they add the bishop to checkers? Admittedly I haven't played in quite some time, but I thought it was a chess-only piece.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This may sound like an old fart question, but when did they add the bishop to checkers? Admittedly I haven't played in quite some time, but I thought it was a chess-only piece.

That was my point, though maybe it seemed clearer in my head. It doesn't make sense to move your bishop playing checkers -- there isn't a bishop in checkers -- and I intended that to be analogous to evaluating a logical formula derived in one system according to the truth criteria of a different system.