How do you attempt to rationalise with the completely irrational?

[seer]

You have previously stated " God is the very source of logic". It therefore appears that you are confining your omnipotent deity to the bounds of [a human construct] namely logic.

How on earth do you get that? I'm confining God to His nature, not human constructions. Why do keep avoiding this question: do you agree that the laws I mentioned are absolute?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How on earth do you get that? I'm confining God to His nature, not human constructions.

Logic is a human construct.

[seer]

Logic is a human construct.

I will ask again: do you agree that the laws I mentioned are absolute?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I will ask again: do you agree that the laws I mentioned are absolute?

I will repeat, logic is a human construct.

[Whateverman]

How about the three basics laws that apply across the board [...]

As has been explained to you previously, the law of non-contradiction breaks down at the quantum level. It does not "apply across the board".

[seer]

I will repeat, logic is a human construct.

So if they are a human construct then the laws of logic could in theory be relative - so they are not absolute?

[seer]

As has been explained to you previously, the law of non-contradiction breaks down at the quantum level. It does not "apply across the board".

No it doesn't breakdown, and you can not demonstrate that it does.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post768638

[Whateverman]

As has been explained to you previously, the law of non-contradiction breaks down at the quantum level. It does not "apply across the board".

No it doesn't breakdown, and you can not demonstrate that it does.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post768638

Internet partisans don't have the authority to dismiss physics.

Electrons simultaneously exist as both particles and waves. Treating an electron only as a wave in order to contradict some argument on the internet is facile at best, and dishonest at worst.

As far as demonstration goes, if you feel no need to demonstrate that your god is the source of logic, you can't whine when other people refuse to be held to a higher evidentiary standard ;)

[seer]

Internet partisans don't have the authority to dismiss physics.

Electrons simultaneously exist as both particles and waves. Treating an electron only as a wave in order to contradict some argument on the internet is facile at best, and dishonest at worst.

As far as demonstration goes, if you feel no need to demonstrate that your god is the source of logic, you can't whine when other people refuse to be held to a higher evidentiary standard ;)

So the law of non-contradiction does not hold - so how do you do science? The sun exists at this moment, the sun does not exist at this moment. That is a possibility if you are correct.

[Whateverman]

So the law of non-contradiction does not hold - so how do you do science?

By doing science, obviously. Hypothesis, testing, reviewing, refining, theory, etc ad nauseum.

The sun exists at this moment, the sun does not exist at this moment. That is a possibility if you are correct.

Not on a statistical probability large enough that we need to treat the possibility seriously.

Let's remember where this started, which was your unsupported assertion that logic is absolute and universal. The only thing necessary to debunk it is pointing to a single instance - at any scale - of logic failing to hold. Quantum phenomena are most significant at the quantum-rather-than-macro scale. Suns don't simultaneously exist as a wave and not a wave, but electrons do.

The "laws of logic" do not hold at the quantum level.

This is a fact, and cannot be refuted by thrashing about in an internet discussion.

[seer]

Not on a statistical probability large enough that we need to treat the possibility seriously.

How do you know that, how do you figure the statistical probability? Be specific.

Let's remember where this started, which was your unsupported assertion that logic is absolute and universal. The only thing necessary to debunk it is pointing to a single instance - at any scale - of logic failing to hold. Quantum phenomena are most significant at the quantum-rather-than-macro scale. Suns don't simultaneously exist as a wave and not a wave, but electrons do.

How do you know a sun can not both simultaneously exist and not exist? If the laws of logic do not hold it is possibility. And I would say that we don't understand what is going on the quantum well enough to claim the law of non-contradiction does not hold. If I follow your view I could claim that the universe is 6 thousand years old and 13 billion years old. That at least is a possibility.

[Leonhard]

Seer, I'm not sure you can discuss a law of logic as if it is something that needs a source. They are abstract concepts, and all abstracts things don't exist. If had a universe that consisted of nothing but the abstract platonic forms, then it would be perfectly reasonable to say that "Absolutely nothing existed".

I think you're very sold on the concept of something being bound. As if it is demeaning to God to somehow say that God cannot violate the law of contradiction. That's not demeaning at all. We're just saying that God is consistent. Or that God cannot do something that cannot be done. This doesn't require an external power greater than God in order to ensure that he behaves according to those rules.

Logic is a linguistic construct. The question is whether it is or not. It clearly is. It's made up of symbol and rules that signify abstract concepts. The question is why is logic useful, and that's much more interesting.

Logic is useful because in fact the world is a certain way. And it is this latter thing which is a mystery to atheists, but has an obvious and trivially simple reason for theists.

[Leonhard]

By doing science, obviously. Hypothesis, testing, reviewing, refining, theory, etc ad nauseum.

You cannot do science without the law of contradiction. At the very least we need to be able to reject ideas. And any math strong enough to describe integers requires the law of non-contradiction.

Let's remember where this started, which was your unsupported assertion that logic is absolute and universal. The only thing necessary to debunk it is pointing to a single instance - at any scale - of logic failing to hold. Quantum phenomena are most significant at the quantum-rather-than-macro scale.

This idea, that the Classical Logic should be replaced with a Quantum Logic version, was proposed in the 1930ies. It was popular for a while but mainly fell out of favor since it didn't really solve any conceptual problems, and no one could really argue why this was superior to the other interpretations that were emerging of Quantum Mechanics.

I'm personally not in favor of this interpretation, and I don't think seer or anyone else has to grant it as the right choice.

[Whateverman]

You cannot do science without the law of contradiction.

Yes you can, you absolutely can. Science is little more than using testing data to reject or verify a hypothesis. You can run experiments whether the law of contradiction holds or not. If the law disappeared over night, and if this was reflected in the experimental data - we'd still have done science.

At the very least we need to be able to reject ideas. And any math strong enough to describe integers requires the law of non-contradiction.

You're drifting towards reification, here. Is this law something math is based upon, or is it merely a description/abstraction of how things work? I believe it's the latter...

This idea, that the Classical Logic should be replaced with a Quantum Logic version, was proposed in the 1930ies. It was popular for a while but mainly fell out of favor since it didn't really solve any conceptual problems, and no one could really argue why this was superior to the other interpretations that were emerging of Quantum Mechanics.

I'm personally not in favor of this interpretation, and I don't think seer or anyone else has to grant it as the right choice.

No one is asking that it be granted as the right choice (from the pool of quantum interpretations). It's being cited here as compelling evidence that seer's unsupported claim - about logic being absolute and universal - is false. He doesn't have to accept that I'm right about this, but it's a fact that I have objective evidence for my argument - and he does not.

[Leonhard]

Yes you can, you absolutely can. Science is little more than using testing data to reject or verify a hypothesis.

I disagree. We have to be able to talk about something either being, or not being the case. This cannot be done without the law of contradiction. To do so, is to apply that law. Once you apply math, you implicitly already apply the law, i.e 1 ≠ 2.

You can run experiments whether the law of contradiction holds or not. If the law disappeared over night, and if this was reflected in the experimental data - we'd still have done science.

You cannot test the laws of logic with scientific experiments without resulting in circular reasoning which is fallacious. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that science can't even determine whether science works in the general case. You unavoidably have to tangle with philosophy.

You're drifting towards reification, here. Is this law something math is based upon, or is it merely a description/abstraction of how things work? I believe it's the latter...

Math is language. But I haven't seen a version of science proposed that rejects classical logic and replaces it with something else, except for some few discussions in Quantum Logic.

No one is asking that it be granted as the right choice (from the pool of quantum interpretations). It's being cited here as compelling evidence that seer's unsupported claim - about logic being absolute and universal - is false. He doesn't have to accept that I'm right about this, but it's a fact that I have objective evidence for my argument - and he does not.

You do not have objective evidence that Quantum Logic is true. It couldn't be determined by experiment anyway, you would have to employ metaphysical reasoning, and also explain the intelligibility of it. The lack of arguments of those kinds are precisely why it fell out of favor.