Timeline for How does logic deal with objects that change?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 2023 at 17:42 | comment | added | J Kusin | There’s nothing special about understanding. If abstract objects exist they exist regardless of humans existing/having understanding. The specific relationship(s) between abstract and physical (e.g 1/r^2 square cube law to gravity around a planet) is thus not in the understanding. The relationship/connection is there regardless. I seek that relationship, and see a problem with wholly separate realms, yet with highly specific connections between them. Understanding appears redundant if we think about if humans don’t exist, yet the relations still exist. | |
| Aug 3, 2023 at 2:40 | comment | added | RodolfoAP | @JKusin, of course there's a far relationship between abstract objects (eg. free fall) and physical happenings (molecules bumping). Reason is totally blind to the physical, but, see Kant, the senses gather intuitions (raw signals) that are converted by the understanding (the mechanism that extract abstract concepts from such raw signals, coming from your skin, nose, tongue, etc). Once the understanding gets ABSTRACT concepts, reason applies logic over them. How would reason skip your skin, and PROCESS/ADDRESS/THINK the physical organic mass (eg. molecules, chemistry, etc.) of an apple? | |
| Aug 2, 2023 at 19:26 | comment | added | J Kusin | Something else must be going on. If reasoning/thinking is always about abstract objects, what is calling that specific abstract object being reasoned to the corresponding physical happening? Not our reasoning or thinking. So it must be a correspondence between abstract objects and physical happenings. And to explain that correspondence, you need to allow for reasoning to not be totally blind to the physical, or for logic to not only be about abstract objects. | |
| Aug 1, 2023 at 18:36 | comment | added | RodolfoAP | @JKusin What you ask is explained in the answer. Logic applies to abstract objects, and reason infers conclusions upon such abstract objects. For example: if "the map is not the terrain", you just apply logic to the abstraction (the map), not to the terrain. Of course, for that to be possible, you need to create the abstraction in the first place: to create the map. Or you buy a GPS, and you "fly by instruments", performing logical decisions upon the abstraction (the map in the GPS), not to the terrain. | |
| Aug 1, 2023 at 17:53 | comment | added | J Kusin | If “Logic is just a set of rules that apply to abstract objects” were true, humans would not work with it as we do. Many of our theories rely on knowing it. So it’s more than you let on. We use its structure to solve real world problems. How can we do that if logic is only rules about abstract objects. | |
| Aug 1, 2023 at 8:30 | history | edited | RodolfoAP | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1075 characters in body
|
| Aug 1, 2023 at 8:24 | history | edited | RodolfoAP | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1075 characters in body
|
| Aug 1, 2023 at 8:13 | history | edited | RodolfoAP | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1075 characters in body
|
| Aug 1, 2023 at 8:08 | history | edited | RodolfoAP | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1075 characters in body
|
| Aug 1, 2023 at 8:01 | history | edited | RodolfoAP | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1075 characters in body
|
| Jul 31, 2023 at 19:27 | history | answered | RodolfoAP | CC BY-SA 4.0 |