Where does logic come from?

God

I agree it's formalized intuition, but I am not sure I agree with the rest

But it's not that simple. For instance, how do we know that a = c after the third line. Just because they both equal b doesn't mean they naturally equal each other. You must first prove that if a were less than b, b's magnitude would be greater than a's in relation to c, and that a's would be less. This is why Euclid needs to prove V. 8 before he proves prop V. 9.

You would think it is that simple, but it is not.

literature recommendations on this idea?

Okay, but why are the intuitions what they are?
I know Nietzsche suggests this early on in Human All Too Human. Authors dealing with evolutionary approaches to the mind probably discuss it too. Maybe Dennett, but I can't say for sure.

>its a philosophers start skirting math but for some reason dont want to actually bring math into the conversation despite math and philosophy being forever intertwined

Autistic people

It's more than that. You can't even deny that a=a without assuming it, as Aristotle noted.

a = basketball
b = an orange/grapefruit
c= a soccer ball

a = b = c

a = c
1. quality = roundness

2. quality = size

3. quality = color (the soccer ball is orange)

In the quality of shape, a = b = c.

In the quality of 'type of thing' a, b and c are not equal.

You're retarded

We don't know. Theists would probably say it's transcendent. Logic is based on axioms. Axioms are assumed. We haven't proven our assumptions true.

>"Since I was a child of three or four," he says, "I was always wondering, you know, why does a bubble take the shape of a ball? Why not a triangle or a square? I figured it out. If Pythagoras was here to see it, he would lose his mind. Einstein, too! Tesla!"
>"This is the last century that our children will ever have been taught that one times one is one," he says. "They won't have to grow up in ignorance. Twenty years from now, they'll know that one times one equals two. We're about to show a new truth. The true universal math. And the proof is in these pieces. I have created the pieces that make up the motion of the universe. We work on them about 17 hours a day. She cuts and puts on the crystals. I do the main work of soldering them together. They tell the truth from within."

>After high school, he attended Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, studying chemical engineering, until he got into an argument with a professor about what one times one equals. "How can it equal one?" he said. "If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two, and that cannot be." This did not go over well, he says, and he soon left school. "I mean, you can't conform when you know innately that something is wrong."

rollingstone.com/tv/news/terrence-howards-dangerous-mind-20150914

good luck asking these fags

I bet most of them struggled at geometry

if lit dropped an sd in intelligence, turned into a nigger, and got a huge ego boost, they;d be this guy

>when you equate things they‘re equal
woah so this is the power of logic

what is logic actually good for I mean in applied use

no simplistic bullshit like this is how I find my car keys

What the fuck

The point is, even if the conclusion is obvious, you must lead the person there from the foundation of relations of things. This is how mathematical logic usually operates, through determining how things look when something is greater or less, THEN determining that an absence of either of these properties (or really a single state of two things have a greater than/less than property towards each other) determines that they must be equal.

literally everything invented since the 1930s, including medecine dosages, message cryptography, efficient sub/bus stops

literally EVERYTHING you humanities major

theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/

t. fagtard that doesn't know shit about logic, theoretical computer science, or analytic philosophy.

None. Very few academics who are informed on this subject would believe logic emerges as the result of evolutionary beneficial patterns of inference. There are numerous region to reject this position, and even any biological or psychological reasons in general. Logic is much more fundamental than that, and seems to be present on even the most basic physical and mathematical levels (. . . and computation is what links these two).

Moreover, there is no reason to go to such an abstract level as evolutionary psychology. A psychologistic or biologically oriented account of logic would probably look like theories of "mental grammar" and "universal grammar" in the field of generative grammar.

>t. fagtard that doesn't know shit about logic, theoretical computer science, or analytic philosophy.
Humility is a virtue, friend.

Your reasons for rejecting logic as a codification of types of inferences that increase probability of survival are:
1. Logic seems to be present at the most basic physical level.
2. There's no reason to be as abstract as evolutionary psychology.

You simply assert claim 2 and then speculate about what it would entail for generative grammar. This is bizarre since since evolutionary psychology is less abstract than mathematics, which you rightly hold in high esteem, and since your speculative conclusions are possible outcomes (at best), not necessary outcomes. It isn't clear how this is supposed to be a criticism of the idea that logic is a codification of types of inferences that increase probability of survival.

You're going to need to explain what you mean in 1. In what sense is logic "present" in physics. I agree that it is present in some sense, but not in any sense that I could understand to be undermining my position.

Abstraction.

aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/logic.html
Everybody go home.

>intuition
dude what...? logic is almost always totally contrary to our primitive intuitions.

i am here for this

This has been bugging me. Since there are many logics, how do we know the one we use is the "right" one? It can't be proved empirically, since we're unable to interpret empirical evidence without some sort of logic and logic is what we use to determine which empirical evidence is valid in the first place, e.g. if we think we see something that prior experience + logic tells us is impossible, we conclude that our perception is mistaken, and the only way to "disprove" a logic is on its own terms. Should we really just go with whatever logic is most intuitive? What if the universe doesn't fit our intuitions? Are we just fundamentally fucked then?

>where does the concept of a thing being more voluminous than another come from
Logic doesn't fucking come from anything, it's self-evident.
>Is the thing we call sound real
>How can we see the difference between a square and a circle
>If I have one, and another one; do I have three?

This. OP is in dire need to discover what the fuck an axiom is

>there are many logics
You'll have to elaborate on this

It's true that it's impossible to fully justify reason itself since we can only do that through reason, and ironically reason also tells us we can't prove a system to be correct by using itself
I dont know why we have so much faith in logic but you have to fall back onto something, and at least logic is fairly consistent in most cases

Logic = asymmetry, or, symmetry, between axioms.
Logic is like time, height, weight, colors, pressure, pain, death. They are cause they aren't something else. Something is only high cause something else isn't as high.

It is, to see, what isn't.

This too.
Also:
Axioms are usually considered to be propositions identifying a fundamental, self-evident truth. But explicit propositions as such are not primaries: they are made of concepts. The base of man’s knowledge (of all other concepts, all axioms, propositions and thought) consists of axiomatic concepts. An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.

Are you guys actually denying this?

A 30% cohort of white men.

the structure of human nervous systems and subjective consciousness. it wouldn’t work the same if there was a different form of cognition, which would construct different techne, abstract and physical. anyone who denies this can only appeal to their own logical devices and neurology. very sad thing to rely on

quantity of neurons. which makes abstract thought possible

reddit

me
explain

he’s been vanquished as easily as that, has nothing left. will whine about axioms and “self-evident” truths for hours and then call you anti-science

you chop off your hands, honestly. i couldn’t imagine believing any of the gay shit analytical niggers and mathematicians tell themselves

it's the most basic retarded answer masked with basic scientific knowledge
>hurr logic comes from teh brain xD

the question was "where does logic come from?". please explain where else logic would come from.

I don't know, but you don't seem to understand the distinction between "come from" and "allowed by"

me
if the question was intended to ask why we have logic the obvious answer would be to say that it is optimal for survival. this isn't a difficult question, am i missing something?

>>there are many logics
>You'll have to elaborate on this
Depending on what axioms you accept. e.g. there are people who do mathematics without the Law of Excluded Middle, which is a fundamental part of classical logic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(mathematics)
But should we use the axiom of excluded middle in real life? It seems to work, but is that enough? Can quantum bullshit disprove it?

If A was a bone and B was a pork chop then C was a pig the logic wouldn't be true because a pork chop isn't a fucking bone.

>people actually think logic is a human construct
does not everything in the universe follow the same laws independent of human consciousness?

I don't know, does it?

Do you want me to tell you why this is wrong or why this is reddit
I'll answer the latter: you're answering on a completely different level to what the question is asking

I bet your answer to the trolley dilemma goes something along the lines of "find the emergency derailing lever" doesn't it?
Also nobody fucking cares which posts are yours, lurk before posting next time and embarrassing yourself

This seems to be a different way of applying logic, but a proof by the absurd uses the same logic as the arguments explaining why you can't use it
That's to say that no matter what techniques you use in a mathematical demonstration, you'll always use logic/reason (which can be applied in different ways hence your article) but you'll never use your physical senses for example

If you're a platonic realist then yes
Personally I think it makes the most sense

>I'll answer the latter
yep

...

>food analogies

This.

if A was a solid turd, and B was Diarrhea, and C was a green mixture: the logic in OP would be correct, if seeking the commonality of shit: but in that context and example, A would not be equal to B and C on multiple accounts of qualities

Logic is about similarities and differences and possible relations and interactions between themselves and each other

>let me pretend that applying a rule in impertinent cases somehow disproves its efficacy

Better be baiting

What?
Are you stupid?

>reading comprehension
Better be bad at logic

Which is why we define how equals operates. It is a relation that puts two entities in a NOT unequal relation to each other. In reality, it seems equality is proven through a reduction as absurdum of inequality

Reductio ad absurdum

Trust me, spellcheck can go fuck itself for not knowing latin

>Theists would probably say it's transcendent

Who says this?

>70 posts
>nobody answered the simple question op asked.
>the absolute state of lit reading comprehension

Logic comes from ontology, user.
/pol/ out

>I don't know what I'm talking about so I'll just say he has no reading comprehension

Definitely baiting

Exactly. We know you are from /pol/ because you can’t answer a simple question.

There are many kinds of logic, defined all over the place. What kind was OP referring to. If it was the logic of A equaling C that introduces the principle of non-contradiction in a prior proof regarding inequality.

That is an extremely specific answer though, if you want to get broader, logic is developed from reason, and reasoning is something both the mind and soul does, so ontology may partially be correct, but is not exactly specific

This is unbelievable, human satire.

its the rules of contingency, beyond that i'm stumped.

logic is the result of cataloguing all possible things and possibilities, similarities and differences, relationships, cause and effect, composite-more-than-sum-of-parts-effects. The natural, the self evident system of classification, what follows from the other.

However I noted sum-of-parts-composite, which is interesting, because this is where maybe 'quantum' stuff gets in, or this is moving this way being forced by that and that is moving this way being forced by this which at that same time was being forced by another which that one was being forced by another and all of them being forced one way or another by multiple things being forced one way or another by multiple things all at the same time and what exactly caused what. And I dont know much about fuzzy logic.

But imagine something like a finger puppet shadow on the wall, or like ink blot tests, but to use the first example, the actual thing is one way, but because of certain aspects of reality, light, shadow, the distance and time, and how it shows on wall, etc. a phenomenon feature is detected in relation to the object finger puppet hand:

And people familiar with hands and everything or not, may not be able to tell much about the object from the appearance of hardly some of its
characteristics.

logic is the spirit of order. Of understanding, the meaning of sense, making sense, understanding, agreement, that 'making sense' is what threw me off on the tangent of thinking about senses disconnect, and how something classically phenomenological could appear causal logical but really there is some 'shadow' delay tricks due to the nature of force carriers, and such on and such on.

tenth post best post

Bingo

stupid post

possibly: an imprinting of the world's ordering using the ink of death. If that's not divine poetry I don't know what is: the crystallized deaths of our ancestors equips us with the linguistic abilities necessary to contemplate our own life in the face of death.

Stupid post

Your impression of logic: a mystifying array of symbols capable of leveraging argument by indicating authority.

That's fucking retarded brah, sorry. Don't be buttmad you wrote a stupid post.

guys this is fucking me up, someone help. Im now confused.

This should prove that a = b is not necessarily true, right?

one cannot simply make the statement a = b? yeah?

>Of understanding, the meaning of sense, making sense, understanding, agreement, that 'making sense' is what threw me off on the tangent of thinking about senses disconnect, and how
the fact of imprint, senses, light off atoms of the world into eyes, cones, optic nerve, electric singles, passing through multiple mechanisms, wires, chambers, encoded and presented in different ways, and the same for smell, and sound, and touch and taste.

The exact impression experienced by the experiencer, the exact 'seeing of tree', or flower, or rabit, or pond, or grass, or building, exactly the image that is experienced by the experiencer, is all that is given: logic and connecting all these imagies together, and relations,

but is there a logical relation in the smell, and taste, and sight, of different herbs and foods and spices and candles? what is the meaning of logic there, where is the ultimate sense, of meaning of classification, if a red candle made of herb A tastes like salt and smells like pine trees: Is there any 'sense' between those characteristics? Is there any classification?

Is it under: Things that can have multiple characteristics that dont really have a logically coherent following relation of exact necessary purpose and meaning.

Is there a logical reason strawberries look as they do and taste as they do, and do not taste like banananas and bananas not like them?

Could a strawberry be made to taste like banana, and what then, and then what?

logic is about why mechanisms work, what follows, if A exists as 1, 2, 3,, and B exists as 4,5,6 when B interacts with A like this: QTRF, then EUBG will happen because 1, 2, and 3 are like this: 437436.

And 4, 5, 6 are like this YG4HD

And when 437436 interacts with YG4HD; EUBG happens. Because there is an axiomatically proven eternal universal proclamation of undeniable perfectly partitioned true fundamental organization of perfect a priori order even points and lines incrementally expanding in repetition

usually I guess it is assumed it is numbers: but even then:

If A = 4

B = 8/2

C= (2)(2)

How does it confuse you? You can make the statement a=b whenever .

just need specification I guess: a = b = c is a 'mould' or blueprint, or form or function that imputs can be entered into: so when inputs are clarified you can use the equation as a balance, as a measuring device, to see if what you are trying to say with the thing you are plugging in, if they are equal and true.

The meaning of "=" in a logical setting is not the same as the meaning of "=" in an arithmetic setting.

We usually take "=" or, better yet "≡" (since it distinguishes from the arithmetic equals) to mean "If and only if."

It doesn't make much sense to say "An object if an only if another object." We usually think of a and b as referring to events/logical facts.

So "(a ≡b) and (b≡c)" might refer to "(A man is a philosopher if and only if he studies philosophy) and (a man studies philosophy if and only if he is a student of philosophy)"

Altogether then, the transitive property of ≡ would give us

"A man who is a philosopher is a student of philosophy."

Perhaps not the best example but I think the structure is clear.

THEREFORE:

if a is equal to b: then b IS a, and what about a makes it b at all? Why is b quality, clarification, title, necessary?

but what if a =/= b like this guys example.

A basketball does not equal a grapefruit
or what about a= b
b=c
a=c
but then what if I say a =3 b=5 c=7

Something is awry

There are two matters at hand:

1. The arithmetic principle that a=b and b=c implies a=c (this is called the "transitive property of equality" in mathematics).

2. The logic principle that "if and only if" is transitive. that is, "a if and only if b" and "b if and only if c" implies "a if and only if c." This is called "Logical equivalence." It is not the same thing as saying, "A and B are the same object."

I think you're confusing the transitive property of ≡ with rules about naming.

Let us say there is a thing (it doesn't matter what). We shall call this thing "A". We might also refer to it as "B" occasionally. In this example, (and NOT in the above examples) we may say "A is B."

this is why going to uni and freely available education or widely available higher edu is extremely damaging and also why literati and intelligentsia probably need to be purged

What is your problem exactly?

Ive found a way to answer my own question. It's not a *correct* statement, which isnt the goal in the first place. It's a *logical* statement.

note the space, a reflexive attempt to distance oneself from one’s own flow of creation. very feminine, as if im being invited into the vacuum that they allow to then collapse on me like a carnivorous plant or some burrowing arhropod’s tunnel trap. fascinating

It's just a typing habit. I think you need to relax. Hang out a little. Dry out. We'll pick up where we left off tomorrow, you're getting cranky and impatient.

lets say:
A = 4 and...
A = B
Thus, B has to be 4.
Now, lets say B = C
since we know B = 4, C also has to equal 4 to be equal to B.
Finally, this means, if A = 4, A = B, B = C, then A has to equal C, since both equal 4.

but we can say that B equals anything. Thats the whole purpose of distinguishing A from B and C.
you cant say A=B and a and b are both 4. because you arent even saying A= B at that point, youre just saying '4'. the whole point is that you can substitute.

Should all kind of thinking not link back to some kind of origin? - I would propose that man is only a recreative form of thought and therefore, we are always influenced by the "origin" whatever that might be.

God

You either can't read or you're being deliberately dense

ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha jesus mary and joseph hahahahahahahahahaha i pray unto thee, oh lord god, ruler of heavens and creator of the earth, please 5-D print more of these creatures oh my word hahahahahahahahahHa