is logic a subset of illogic
Debate Rounds (3)
1.lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
1.reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
What is Logic?
As mentioned above logic is defined as reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. Which simply states that you think coherently with what is provided to be true.
This by extension infers that if someone is very logical it means that, with what is provided true, they can deduce, coherently, other concepts shown to them, and/or develop there own contraptions using only what is true.
What are this "truths"?
Truths encompass a number of things including the fundamental laws of nature and mathematics, for example, gravity, in addition to more relative truths such as economics and history.
Is Logic Absolute?
This is a very important question and the answer is no. For us there are a set of "principles of validity" that we adhere to, however, this does not mean that these set of principles extend to all reaches of The Universe at all times and to a degree even past the confines of The Universe. For example, in the moments after the big bang the 4 fundamental laws of nature were combined into one and the expansion of the universe was much greater than the speed of light, which has been supported by evidence of the effects of primordial gravitational fields on light rays. This and many other "principles of validity" have thus changed over time meaning that logic must change with them as it is dependent on these principles of validity. Equally, it is also believed that this is not the only universe which exists and string theory suggests there are many other universes which exist all with different dimensions and different laws of nature, and although this premise is based on speculation there is no reason suggesting otherwise. Even within physics the principles of validity seem to vary by significant amounts - Newton's laws of motion seem to describe the motion of macroscopic sized objects within the universe but break down when dealing with subatomic particles.
1.the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.
What does this mean?
The fact that logic is not absolute means that it is relative, and so can be compared and contrasted, so from one perspective, a person who exists at a different time such as moments after the big bang would conclude that the universe we now exist in is illogical meaning the reasoning we deduce from our laws is thus also illogical and vica versa. So reasoning is in effect generally illogical because the laws always change.
Tying it all in
So we can now consider everything as being illogical and a group of illogical laws become perceived as valid and coherent because we exist within that set and so become classified as logic - we can thus derive logic from illogic.
and so instead of considering the two statements as mutually exclusive as shown here
we can consider logic as being a subset of illogic
(A is the set which is logical - it is time dependent and there can be more than one of these sets, some may even overlap, U is the universal set which is illogical)
A key point to remember is that mathematics and physics are BASED on axioms and explain the laws of nature that we currently live in they do not define it suggesting that we can only which suggests how dependent logic is to the parameters of our existence.
Logic is dependent on a set of principles which are illogical and thus causing logic itself to be logical to the people within that set whereas universally it is actually illogical.
Is Logic Absolute?
You argue in your point that the changes in validity proves that logic has also changed, but this is untrue. Your definition of validity is the quality of being logically or factually sound; we can ignore the first as the denotative meaning of logic covers this, so instead let's examine fact.
The definition of fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality . What this means, is that when you present logic as being "relative", you are incorrect by definition. Any points you have made resting on the case for relative logic is false until you can prove otherwise.
If we define fact as information having the quality of being actual, then the principles of validity become the principle of being actual. By extension, logic becomes reasoning conducted or assessed according to principles of reality.
Reality may very well be relative, but the reasoning that is being conducted in relation to its principles is not. The definition of principle is a comprehensive and fundamental law .
a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions .
Since the latter definition loops back to the original one, the relevant definition is the one that says laws are invariable. An invariable statement cannot be relative. So if logic consists of invariable statements that apply to reality, then by definition they cannot be relative so your argument is false.
Your burden of proof has not been fulfilled.
The absolute nature of Law
I ask both you and the floor to consider this example, let us take a man who has committed a foul act of indecency but there was no law deeming his act illicit, however after the situation had occurred they legislated a new law making the act the man did illegal, then considering all this my question to you is, has the man therefore committed a crime? if he has not then how is law absolute?
a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
This is the definition my opponent has provided for law, he explicitly states that laws are invariable but intentionally refrains from mentioning "so far as is known" and "under the given conditions" as I have pointed out these conditions may change allowing, by his definition, for the Law to also change.
Reality may very well be relative, but the reasoning that is being conducted in relation to its principles is not.
So you have essentially said that something dependent on something else which is relative need not necessarily be relative? if reality changes, then the principle of reality changes because the fundamental laws of reality changes and thus the reasoning of principles should change. If I had a ball that bounced and I moulded it into a square, its reality has changed, which has caused its fundamental laws to change - it has no curves, it now has edges, angles and it also does not bounce and so how we reason with it should also change; we now consider it to be a cube or a cuboid rather than a sphere and so treat it accordingly.
something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
This is the actual definition provided by your link of what fact is and does not suggest anything about logic not being relative. I have not argued that these fundamental laws do not truly exist but rather that they have existed but not all the time. Referring back to the unification of the fundamental laws that governed our universe during the very few moments of the big bang, this truly happened and at the time was considered a fact, furthemore at that point in time the 4 fundamental forces weren't actually in existence and therefore did not truly exist and so were not facts.
My definition of Fact
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
I now ask you, can something which is unknown but still existent still be a fact? Combining both my definition and your definition, facts depend on what we can observe making facts relative, there can be something that truly exists which we do not know about, i.e Unknown knowns.
my initial argument still holds
Upon further reflection and research, I came to the conclusion that when logic is considered "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity", this does not refer to principles which are true, but principles of truth itself.
This means that the conditional truths that come across inductively (such as the laws concerning space and time) are not principles of validity, but simply ideas with a grand amount of intellectual merit. Space and time do not decide how validity work, but rather have relative truths associated with them.
Principles of validity are the fundamental laws that decide the truth value of everything. When an idea is untrue at any time (for example, the big bang) the untrue idea is not the rule of truth, but just the law.
If you can prove the laws of space and time to be relative, then the relativity isn't valid, as proof requires reasoning and is therefore never illogical.
At this point, I would normally defend my previous arguments, but seeing as they are irrelevant now, I will refrain from putting them here. To maintain good conduct, I will say that the supposed "actual" definition of fact goes alongside the actual definition I gave. If we accepted the actual definition I gave, then that would prove that there is logic which cannot possibly be a subset of Logic. Your objective statement is rendered subjective.
My opponent has given much evidence, but the evidence they have provided has been found without much credibility (as in the claim that the laws concerning time were relative, as opposed to the relativity of time being a part of objective law), and without much relevance to the topic at hand.
That was very thought provoking, but your contentions are unproven. I strongly advise the floor to vote pro.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.