Are we deceived by logic?

The german mathematician David Hilbert once dreamed of finding a complete and finite set of consistent axioms as a foundation of Mathematics. This dream, shared by many mathematicians was utterly crushed by Kürt Gödel when he proved it to be impossible with his Incompleteness theorems.

We can’t prove mathematics within it self and by extension any system from within the system it self. One has to stand outside the system to fully prove or understand it. This applies to logic as well, and by extension our own thoughts.

What if logic would be the natural path intelligent beings of this universe follow in their thoughts, like a built in trail for everything to follow. Did we invent it, or did we find it? I’m going to assume it to be a natural part of our universe in this argument (one could of course argue otherwise).

Logic is supposedly a natural trail and schematics of this universe, followed by any intelligent being. This of course means that logic is a system within the system “Universe”, which makes it impossible for logic to prove or understand that universe, there will always be something which we cant quite grasp using this method.

Logic has helped us build the modern world, our development is escalating at an impressive rate, and there are no signs that this would slow down anytime soon (assuming we don’t destroy our selves).

An even more modern world, interpreted by Moa Wallin

But let’s stop here and look at todays physics for a minutes, it’s pretty wild and crazy. We had it all sort of figured out until we split the atom, then everything went crazy.

• Relative time and space
• 11 Dimensions (the tenth dimension would be infinite raised by infinity.)
• Particle teleportation between dimensions
• An infinite amount of universes
• “Super membranes” vibrating in the 11th dimension creating the universes

Scientists are actually working on this, by using logic.

What would happen if we followed the trail and schematic that is logic to the close border of understanding the truth about our universe? It’s not like the thought would just end there, it’s not like our universe to behave in that manner. It would be more likely that it just led us to different weird thought patterns trying to explain the impossible.

Imagine a sphere. The logical trail followed by mankind would start at the center and lead us towards the edge, where the ultimate truth lies. But as logic can never reach the edge it just splits very close to the edge and branches out all over the sphere without we even realizing it.

An ugly representation of what I meant.

So, this is a axiomatic argument based on logic, telling us that logic isn’t the answer. Maybe I should turn to Christianity? They seem to have it all figured out as they don’t even bother trying to explain their axioms.

No, I’ll end this with “Live long and prosper”

Share and Enjoy:

1. :D
Oct 22, 2010

:’3 “Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.”

2. Soul Man
Oct 22, 2010

“Universe” ought to be understood as a concept created by man (with the use of logic) to summarize all that ‘is’. This concept hides a dichotomy which would be that which ‘is not’. This can be semantically demonstrated by talking about “what could be outside the universe?” or in this case, what is the truth about the universe.
In short, the conecpt of universe creates a border between that which ‘is’ and that which ‘is not’.
To extend beyond that which ‘is’ unto that which ‘is not’ is utterly impossible, since the occurence of ‘something’ in that which ‘is not’ would make it something that ‘is’.
The point being, there is no truth in or beyond or behind the universe. Logic is basically a tool for manipulating our surroundings to fit our wants and needs. Logic is only true in the sense that it is applicable.

So in following your text, any religion would do a better job describing ‘the universal truth’ than logic ever could. Although, this sentence is semantically incorrect since truth is logical and belief is religious, but it seems you have confused the two in your reasoning and that is what i have aimed to explain, rather poorly though.

Infinity kills truth.

3. Tobias Wallin (Mentation Away)
Oct 22, 2010

Soul Man: What is, and what is not isn’t the point though. The concept I have been referring to by using the term “truth” is full understanding, a way to explain how and why everything is. Scientists are trying to figure these things out today by applying logic, which is indeed producing some strange results as logic isn’t applicable everywhere, at least not the logic we’re used to.

Albeit that my semantics where wrong.

I like the sentence “Infinite kills truth” because it’s probably true, the concept of infinity is a prime example of when our understanding bugs out, the only way to use infinity is to assume it as a closed system which we can observe form the outside.

4. Soul Man
Oct 27, 2010

Yes exactly, and if you use inifinity that way, you are making an error right there. Since infinity is in direct opposition to a closed system.

Yes but full understanding implies the things ‘that is’. If you have full understanding you are able to comprehend all ‘that is’. I.e. you are in possesion of an abosulte truth. ‘why’ is also semantically related to intention and intentions ‘are’ and is thus also a part of all ‘that is’.
So logic decieves us in the way it implies we are able to gain full understanding of all and everything, cause it cant. Logic can at best teach us where we might be able to find the next source of energy to fuel our wants and needs.

5. Tobias Wallin (Mentation Away)
Oct 27, 2010

Indeed, yet mathematicians actually use different infinities as closed systems in their calculations. I’m no math expert so I’m not sure how it works thought.

I’m sure we can use logic to solve a great deal of matters, like the next source of energy. But if I understand you correctly we are sort of talking about the same thing, that logic isn’t the ultimate answer and never will be. But it will of course always be very useful.