Page 13 of 15

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:55 pm
by Interbane
We observe that the solar system is stable, that planetary orbits have very slow and predictable rates of change. Our assumptions about the stability of the earth are predicated upon the stability of the cosmos.
There is nothing that says the laws of nature will necessarily remain the same for the rest of eternity. I of course assume they will, and for all practical purposes it is axiomatic. However, our view upstream of the river of time is limited by the fact that we have not been there. I would say that mathematics is likely eternal, but this is a presumption of mine rooted in pantheistic wonder of the nature of mathematics. Eternity is a long time, not even the universe is purported to be eternal. I'm amazed that you think it's dumb to argue against something being eternal.

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:55 pm
by Robert Tulip
Interbane wrote:
Nietzsche was wrong. As I just noted in the memes thread, logic came into man’s head from Animal Foraging and the Evolution of Goal-Directed Cognition.
I think he was wrong as well, but it's still interesting. The parallel he drew to nature selecting logical people over illogical people was fitting for this thread, that's why I posted it.
Nietszsche's image that "logic [came] into existence in man's head [out] of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense" has a fitting sarcasm regarding the stupidity of popular culture and traditional mythological error. However, it does get the causal origin of logic completely wrong. A redeeming evolutionary insight found in Dawkins and the rest of biology is that humanity is a highly evolved organism, and that features such as logical reasoning are deeply embedded in our DNA as adaptive traits. So the pessimism of Schopenhauer is unwarranted. The deep rationality of human life, with goal setting a key adaptation where gene enters meme, means the illogic of modern life can be replaced by an older logic.

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:04 pm
by Interbane
The deep rationality of human life, with goal setting a key adaptation where gene enters meme, means the illogic of modern life can be replaced by an older logic.
I had assumed you meant that we have evolved the capacity for logic, rather than logic itself. The capacity for logic says nothing about the environment to which we apply it. Today's world is different than the world of ages past, so a more complicated application of logic is required.

What book did you read about dopamine in? I just started the Extended Phenotype last night.

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:20 am
by Robert Tulip
Interbane wrote:
The deep rationality of human life, with goal setting a key adaptation where gene enters meme, means the illogic of modern life can be replaced by an older logic.
I had assumed you meant that we have evolved the capacity for logic, rather than logic itself. The capacity for logic says nothing about the environment to which we apply it. Today's world is different than the world of ages past, so a more complicated application of logic is required.

What book did you read about dopamine in? I just started the Extended Phenotype last night.
As per earlier discussion, logic itself is eternal, outside time, so yes, we have evolved capacity rather than logic itself. Temporal capacity for logic is only useful to the extent it makes contact with the eternal realities of logic. I think I stumbled upon that article on how dopamine has evolved from reading Bart's thread on hyper-religiosity. In any case, I'm mainly mentioning dopamine and its influence on goal-setting to illustrate how we can in principle find a clear evolutionary path for neural development, with the evolution of logical capacity a clear adaptive advantage for humanity.

Looking at the timeline for human evolution homo erectus was around from 1.8 million years ago, but had brains 75% modern size. I suspect the expansion of the logical goal seeking capacity of the brain was the main step in the evolution of homo sapien from homo erectus.

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:41 pm
by Interbane
As per earlier discussion, logic itself is eternal, outside time
You repeat this without support. This is desperately begging for an examination of what exactly logic is, with references to modern philosophy. Is it based on mathematics, in that it is a descriptive language of the universe itself? If so, give me your reasoning that these things will be applicable for all eternity.

If you say they are outside time, what do you mean? If you remove the component of time from spacetime, you do not have eternity, you have a "moment". In this moment, mathematics may apply to space and may have infinite applicability as long as we consider the spacial dimension of the universe infinite. This isn't eternity, however. Eternity necessarily requires the dimension of time as a component of it's infinite definition.

It seems to me that by saying something is "outside time", it's merely clever phrasing by which to then claim that it is eternal. I did a fast search of the phrase "eternal logic" on google, and the first 5 pages were all religious documents and blogs. Any philosophical overlap was of theological nature. It seems that my intuition was correct in disliking the term eternal. The concept is unnecessary and useless except in the case that you're trying to find a place for a god. It is another case of superfluous wishful thinking.

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:30 pm
by Robert Tulip
Interbane wrote:
As per earlier discussion, logic itself is eternal, outside time
You repeat this without support. This is desperately begging for an examination of what exactly logic is, with references to modern philosophy. Is it based on mathematics, in that it is a descriptive language of the universe itself? If so, give me your reasoning that these things will be applicable for all eternity.

If you say they are outside time, what do you mean? If you remove the component of time from spacetime, you do not have eternity, you have a "moment". In this moment, mathematics may apply to space and may have infinite applicability as long as we consider the spacial dimension of the universe infinite. This isn't eternity, however. Eternity necessarily requires the dimension of time as a component of it's infinite definition.

It seems to me that by saying something is "outside time", it's merely clever phrasing by which to then claim that it is eternal. I did a fast search of the phrase "eternal logic" on google, and the first 5 pages were all religious documents and blogs. Any philosophical overlap was of theological nature. It seems that my intuition was correct in disliking the term eternal. The concept is unnecessary and useless except in the case that you're trying to find a place for a god. It is another case of superfluous wishful thinking.
You do like hard questions Interbane! The etymology of eternal - e-ternal - means outside time. A number such as pi, derived from the ratio between diameter and circumference of a set of planar points equidistant from one point, is indeed the same for all eternity, because it does not depend on anything temporal for its existence. Logical relations are analytic - true by definition, and so are independent of time, eg 2+2=4. Physical relations are synthetic - true by observation, so physical laws such as the law of gravity are not 'outside time' in the same way as logical relations, but do persist throughout time. Hence the difference between the logical and physical meanings of eternity. Eternal values are a whole nother kettle of fish (that is why Plato's Academy had only the three subjects of logic, physics and ethics).

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:00 pm
by Robert Tulip
Interbane wrote:
We observe that the solar system is stable, that planetary orbits have very slow and predictable rates of change. Our assumptions about the stability of the earth are predicated upon the stability of the cosmos.
There is nothing that says the laws of nature will necessarily remain the same for the rest of eternity. I of course assume they will, and for all practical purposes it is axiomatic. However, our view upstream of the river of time is limited by the fact that we have not been there. I would say that mathematics is likely eternal, but this is a presumption of mine rooted in pantheistic wonder of the nature of mathematics. Eternity is a long time, not even the universe is purported to be eternal. I'm amazed that you think it's dumb to argue against something being eternal.
Science can assess the rate of change of laws of nature. Where these laws are extremely stable in the record of the universe to date they can be expected to maintain this stability. But nothing is forever - the universe will eventually drift out to a series of permanently further away black holes and debris, or it will turn around to another singularity. Maybe the law of gravity will be different in the next universe. However, I find it hard to imagine that the concept of number, natural, integer, fraction, logarithmic, real, irrational, imaginary, fractal, would be essentially different in a successor universe, as numbers express spatial relations, and a succeeding universe would be constituted in space and time. Maybe the quantum forces would be different and life would not evolve? The fact is the quantum forces of our universe are immensely stable and omnipresent, so questioning their eternity goes well beyond short human time spans, within which numbers such as Planck's Constantare eternally true.

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:08 pm
by Interbane
A number such as pi, derived from the ratio between diameter and circumference of a set of planar points equidistant from one point, is indeed the same for all eternity, because it does not depend on anything temporal for its existence.
This seems little more than word play to me. What tips this off to me is that some mathematics only work in certain geometries. Pythagorean theorem to spacetime vectors jumps immediately to mind, since I just finished reading a book involving such math. You say that pi is the same for all eternity, but you don't support this claim with any reasoning. I think this is an a priori assumption of yours that you haven't explored. If I'm wrong and you can provide me some literature, please do. Like I said, the philosophy of mathematics is intriguing to me.

From Wikipedia:
Logic concerns the structure of statements and arguments, in formal systems of inference and natural language. Topics include validity, fallacies and paradoxes, reasoning using provability and arguments involving causality and time.
Logic such as sufficiency versus necessity is dependent upon time as a component of it's reference. Since this logic refers to a process which requires time, the validity of logic is dependent upon the process always obeying it's rules. If the process becomes disobedient(if we stop time), logic then no longer applies, since it will no longer refer to something true. If logic no longer applies without time, then it is not eternal. But we don't have to stop here. The dependence of logic upon time applies to some logic, yet there are forms of logic that do not depend upon time, such as the logic of identity(A=A). However, there is a problem with applying this to real instances. If you want to say that the A pebble is pebble A(the same pebble), you must specify when you're talking about. The atomic structure of the pebble necessarily changes with time. To talk of the pebble as it is within a single instance is to refer to something we have no experience of. The pebble could at the same time be a pebble A and not pebble A, according to Quantum Physics. How you would apply the law of contradiction to quantum particles in states of superposition?

It becomes increasingly clear that logic follows from the semantics of our language. It is a system of understanding, in the same way that Plato's forms are.

Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:21 pm
by Robert Tulip
Interbane wrote:You say that pi is the same for all eternity, but you don't support this claim with any reasoning.
We cannot conceive a real space in which pi does not apply. Pi is part of the structure of space, in so far as circles exist. Pi is an eternal logical condition for the existence of circles.

Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:26 am
by Interbane
We cannot conceive a real space in which pi does not apply.
Pi's relationship to a circle is analytic; within the definition of a perfect circle. When you conceptualize an abstract perfect circle, Pi is necessarily part of the definition. This does not make Pi any more eternal than a perfect circle. Also, to say that we can't conceive of a real space in which Pi does not apply does not mean there isn't one. Pythagoras theorem as a relationship to a triangle was discovered to not apply to some geometries.