Can you state about what time period the laws of logic were invented by humans? Did they invent all the laws of logic simultaneously? Did they write all the laws of logic down for people to follow, and thereafter communicate all those laws of logic for people to follow, and get agreement for all those people to follow the same (invariant and universal) laws of logic? Can you point to a history book on the discovery of the laws of logic?
No one (not even you) believes the “laws of logic were invented by humans” argument.
I’m not asking if there’s a reason for them to exist independent of human thought. I’m not asking for the raison d’etre of the laws of logic. By you providing a definition of the laws of logic, you seem to agree that they have some ontology independent of human thought. I’m asking about the ontology of the laws of logic. And, more particularly, I’m asking: in a naturalistic system, how can laws of logic exist, when the laws of logic are: abstract/immaterial, universal, and invariant?
What makes you believe the laws of logic are universal and invariant? As I mentioned, they simply describe how human reasoning arrives at validity. What makes you think that human reasoning is the basis for universal invariance? The laws might be usefully considered universal and invariant when applied to evaluation of human reasoning, but that’s not the same as saying they are universal and invariant generally speaking.
OK, fair question. Do you think the laws of logic were different 2,000 years ago? If someone during ancient Roman times stated two things [simultaneously]: a) it’s the case that it’s not my money; and b) it’s NOT the case that it’s not my money; then would you find these two statements (today, commonly used by thieves) acceptable according to the laws of logic?
Same question, but from someone today on the other side of the planet. ???
If I understand what you’re trying to ask: I think I have to refresh my reading of Derrida (and maybe Wittgenstein or Chomsky??) to provide a cohesive answer to thought/word/symbol/sound question it seems you’re picking at…
Or, more simply: your question is so wrapped in words, it makes no sense…
Right. In your naturalistic system, then those people would be incoherent to you, since–in an ever-changing system–there would be no reason to think that their laws of logic are the same as your laws of logic. Instead, you interact with other people, including people from a long time ago, as if their laws of logic are the same as yours. And, in so doing, you are dependent on a supernatural system (whether you realize it or not).
I’m asking, in your naturalistic system, how can laws of logic exist, when the laws of logic are: abstract/immaterial, universal, and invariant?
I can read and understand Derrida’s words; I just might not comprehend them. This is what you’re getting at?
Since the laws of logic are human constructs of reason—not axiomatic (laws describing the properties of the physical world)—they are not abstract/immaterial, universal, and invariant; they are relativistic.
They can be individual or shared by a group (a philosophy, a school of thought, a religion, etc.).
I believe humans only understood and were only able to describe a handful of logic concepts 2000 years ago. I don’t know enough about the state of human neurology and reasoning, but I think we can assume that at the basic level, humans reasoned in roughly the same way, so similar rules of logic could have been used to describe that reasoning. Additionally, we can look back from today, and apply our current understanding of logic to come to our own conclusions about the validity of various lines or reasoning or thought from 2000 years ago.
So, we could certainly conclude that the two statements you provided would not be logically consistent using our current understanding of logic and reasoning.
However, we would be making our best assessment based on our best understanding of the rules human beings have attempted to describe in various ways over thousands of years. Thats much different from any claim that those rules are invariant and universal.
We could say that logic dictates that something can’t exist and not exist at the same time, and yet quantum theory would offer the concept of superposition. We continue to learn, and we continue to find out new things that reshape our understanding of both the physical laws of the universe, and our understanding of how to apply logic and reason.
Japan actually developed its own logic because of their language being constructed differently than in the western world. So they naturally came up with a logic with graded levels of trueness. Basically fuzzy logic.
Quantum physics led us to change logic as well to explain quantum behavior.
There were also revisions in logic following the discovery that some statements in mathematics are undecidable eg axiom of choice etc.
So you guys logic your way to the supernatural exists, and then somehow as part of that there are gods (or god in your case), and then this god cares particularly about humans and there is one correct corpus of information about god that has somehow been passed on to some of us that is correct (and therefore a bunch that aren’t) and then even amongs those that agree there is THE corpus, a whole bunch of different interpretations of it.
And then for the kicker, because this revealed knowledge must be true, when humans use the highly effective methods we’ve developed to figure certain things out but they contradict your group’s particular interpretation of this devinely revealed truth, this acquired knowledge must not be true.
I don’t have an issues with the claim that there might be a god. I take issue with the claim that we have sufficient evidence to believe there are any supernatural beings of any kind, including gods.
