Symbolic Logic

[Suiram]

Your paradox-absorbing crumple zones appear to have blinded you to the futility of arguing that someone is being illogical in their wholesale rejection of logic.

[Max™]

Nice try, but my head was built with paradox-absorbing crumple zones.

:D

<3 you Woozinator, even though you hate my argument style.

[Darus Grey]

I don't think I understand your argument, DG.

In physics, we use different types of symbols just to represent abstract phenomenon. For example, fields were invented by the human mind as a way to understand how objects can interact at a distance. No one meant to imply that there were actually arrows sitting out in space that planets reacted to. Yet, our math was (is) based on the idea that this is the case. Physicists know that this isn't the case in our own minds. These representations are just tools we use to represent what can't really be represented.

Why wouldn't logic be the same way? pv~p is true whether or not we are using symbols. The symbols are nothing more than our way of representing this rule. The truth of pv~p isn't based on it's notation at all; the notation is just a convinient way of expressing what technically can't really be expressed.

Your physics example is iconic, not symbolic(just for reference).

I'm trying to think of a simple way to explain it, so excuse me, it's a complicated topic and I don't want to start throwing out a lot of terminology unique to my field. *time goes by*.

Ok, well first off, let's establish what a Symbol is. A symbol is a representation of something else. You cannot have a solitary symbol, it is a place-holder for something else. An Icon is a place-holder in which the representation *resembles* it's form, as in the case of waves, and irrelevant but for sake of completeness an index is a representation of a causal relationship(smoke is an index of fire).

Now, to clarify, when you say pv~p I am not saying that is the symbol. That is the *notation* of the symbols(symbol of a symbol). The symbols in symbolic logic are the "symbols" as they (supposedly) represented human thought. It was the Greek classical logic that human thought worked by having symbols of everything in our heard, and we manipulated these to form thought.

This is the premise that is flawed, all of the formulas in Symbolic Logic are based on these premises, which is why you need formulas at all.

When you "prove logic" in Semantics and Conceptual Metaphor mapping, you end up with what is essentially a straight line. A continuous stream that is consistent from point A to B. In the case of mapping, the metaphors can be translated into real language and back, without any loss of meaning.

When you "prove logic" with symbolic logic, you are constantly hitting "stop!" points where you have to back-track essentially, and apply rules to make it work. Beyond very simple equations it's impossible to make a grammatical(linguistic sense) use of language out of it. It's a jumbled mess as opposed to a straight line.

Since symbolic logic is based on a false concept of logic, it can't be used to proof anything(and if it does, it's just coincidence, i.e. true conclusion from a false premise).

So to re-iterate, it's entirely possible to create a system of logic represented by symbols. But symbolic logic, as taught in our universities, is not that system.

Plus, it'd be really boring, cause you'd just be describing what is plainly obvious, like we do in mapping and semantics. There's no funky shit cause there's no need for it.

[Woozie]

:D

<3 you Woozinator, even though you hate my argument style.

It's not that I hate it, it's that I can't ever understand what you're saying. In real life, I have language interpretation difficulties. On the internet or any form of written text, it's usually not so bad (except for people who write just like they talk). You *kinda* argue in print the way some people talk in real life, but that's not even the biggest issue. There's something else about the way you write your arguments that I cant understand.

Edit: Well, I guess I do hate it, but only the same way I hate talking to people in real life who don't talk in a way that I can't understand. It's not really their fault so I can't get mad at them for it.

[Max™]

Logic has deeper roots in mathematics than what you're describing, Set Theory, ZRF, etc.

It may have originally been formulated with an incorrect premise that it was representing some deep fundamental nugget of thought, but it has since been incorporated in the larger body of mathematics, as far as I understand it anyway.


As for you Woozie, I understand completely, I talk very much like I write, and vice versa. Funnily I stutter somewhat irl, so it flows more naturally through my fingers than my voice.

[Darus Grey]

There is a difference between LOGIC and SYMBOLIC LOGIC.

I'm not saying that logic is bullshit. But that symbolic logic is.

[Max™]

Symbolic Logic is a system by which statements can be proved within itself (aside from the ones such as Godel showed, wherein the proof of a statements falsehood must be contained within the system itself, thus falsifying the system), so it falls under the umbrella of mathematics, as all logically consistent systems do.

[pahnphoenix]

Symbolic Logic is a system by which statements can be proved within itself (aside from the ones such as Godel showed, wherein the proof of a statements falsehood must be contained within the system itself, thus falsifying the system), so it falls under the umbrella of mathematics, as all logically consistent systems do.

to what are you referring here with godel? are you referring to his incompleteness theorems? if so, they don't falsify the systems to which they apply (naturally, as a formal system can't be "false"). godel showed that sufficiently powerful formal systems (like peano arithmetic) cannot be both consistent and complete.

[Max™]

I was just mentioning the limits he observed, how there is a certain leap which we, as readers, are required to make in the case of statements like: This statement is a falsehood.

[Kwijiboe]

If you have a lot of money you can buy a car.

Albert doesn't have a lot of money, so he can't buy a car.

^This argument is invalid in more than one way, but can also be ruled out as being invalid when you analyze it's form symbolically.

Symbolic logic is very useful and we all make leaps in logic whenever we argue, and symbolic logic allows us to analyze whether or not the form in which you make your argument is valid or invalid.

[Trajan]

to what are you referring here with godel? are you referring to his incompleteness theorems? if so, they don't falsify the systems to which they apply (naturally, as a formal system can't be "false"). godel showed that sufficiently powerful formal systems (like peano arithmetic) cannot be both consistent and complete.

This really blew my mind the first and second and third time I heard about it back in school.