What is the opposite of logic?

ruji said:
Well there is an intention behind you, and it's gonna hurt.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that, I'm pretty compact all around. Only the highly fallacious face sticks out.

potato_shibe_wow_by_kawaiilily12-d6of74h.png
 
Ren said:
I laughed my ass off when I read it! lol I never take things badly where there is no intention to hurt behind them. ;)
Click to expand...
He won’t forget this. INTPs are complex people and only let very few people in. And sure the same can be said for INFJs, however we’re friendlier. If an INTP likes you and lets you in, you’ve made a very loyal friend for life. The two I know I would do just about anything for them because they are the best people I know. And damn they can be funny af!
 
bonfire said:
mmm... the closest the comes to mind is chaos. But even chaos has its own logic right?
Click to expand...

It's a good question. If chaos had its own logic, would it not be predictable to an extent?

I guess you could answer that chaos is predictably chaotic. But this sounds circular. Hmmm..
 
Barkalounger said:
Chaos is still bound by logic... Hence "chaos theory"
Click to expand...

Chaos theory is different from chaos itself though, don’t you think? You might argue that a theory is by definition bound by logic (and I would agree) but whether that is the case of its subject matter must be examined separately.

Maybe chaos is not the opposite of logic but what lies outside logic. What lies beyond the boundaries of the logical realm. Trying to conceptualise the opposite of logic is perhaps vain because opposite-ness is itself a logical term.
 
Ren said:
Chaos theory is different from chaos itself though, don’t you think? You might argue that a theory is by definition bound by logic (and I would agree) but whether that is the case of its subject matter must be examined separately.

Maybe chaos is not the opposite of logic but what lies outside logic. What lies beyond the boundaries of the logical realm. Trying to conceptualise the opposite of logic is perhaps vain because opposite-ness is itself a logical term.
Click to expand...

Now your just talkin' crazy ;)

Chaos theory is an attempt to show that even chaos is bound by laws of nature to an extent, but as you said another thread for another time.

People do not crash cars on purpose, that falls outside the law, it causes chaos. Chaos is the logical conclusion of going outside the law. Logic is what makes sense... the opposite of logic is il-logic, things that simply don't make sense....

Logic/il-logic , Law/Chaos are just words created by man to put things in a box so people can understand it. Maybe you are trying to envision something there is not yet a word for...?
 
In information packing chaos occurs when the file is not anymore reducable to any readable form so the meaning is lost. Reductionism and non-reductionism are limits for what can be called chaos from file packing perspective. Predictibility and non-predictibilities are also limits for chaos in a form of phenomenology. From theory of knowledge the limits are bounded in realization and ignorance.

Because chaos can be limited in different contexts, it has rules that frame it. "Frame we see as chaotic" could be order from another seers perspective.
 
Ren said:
Chaos theory is different from chaos itself though, don’t you think? You might argue that a theory is by definition bound by logic (and I would agree) but whether that is the case of its subject matter must be examined separately.

Maybe chaos is not the opposite of logic but what lies outside logic. What lies beyond the boundaries of the logical realm. Trying to conceptualise the opposite of logic is perhaps vain because opposite-ness is itself a logical term.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't what lies outside logic just be what we have yet to understand?. How can we apply logic to something that seems purely chaotic to us?
 
I don't believe logic has an opposite. I think our brains view things differently and pick a trail to lead us.

On another note, one person's logic can be stupidity to another person.

I also think a person of strong faith sees his faith as more dependable than most. It could be logical to that person to live in faith.
 
Last edited:
Wow this is really interesting. Initially I was down somewhere on the 'chaos' side of things, but some of you have convinced me that chaos essentially exists within the terms of reference created by a fundamentally logical system. Someone mentioned the 'oppositional axis' that we're trying to define here - if logic is at one pole, what's at the other. Again though, I've been convinced by some of you that any such an axis would be a logical creation in itself, and therefore would not represent a true oppositional dichotomy.

The problem we're facing is that logic seems to be too fundamental to the functioning of the universe.

Anyway this is my contribution:

I think the question we should be asking is 'why does logic work'?

We could say that logic works because causality is a reliable principle of the universe. Cause and effect is so reliable that logic becomes a valid system of reasoning.* So here we're starting to construct a hierarchy of concepts with logic at the top.

OK then, why is causality a fundamental property of the universe? Are there any, more fundamental properties, without which causality could not function?

Yes, this property is time. Without time, and the flow of events and interactions, causality becomes meaningless.

Is there a more fundamental concept than time? Yes, existence, but we accept that existence bounds both 'logic' and our posited 'opposite of logic'. This means that 'time' is the really operant concept we need to deal with in our hierarchy of concepts.

Let's test it. If time did not exist, would causality (and therefore logic) exist? The answer is no. Causality and logic would become meaningless. We can go further, and say that actually, 'time' is just a subjective effect of causality, or that causality and time are almost indistinguishable.

This means that, if you want to answer, 'what is the opposite of logic?', I think a good answer might be 'stasis'.

Or what about this: if logic is a form of reasoning contingent on causality/time, what is the form of reasoning contingent upon stasis? Could you imagine a form of reasoning that is not only valid, but possible within stasis? I don't think so. Things would just 'be', and nothing could reason.

This, I think, shows just how fundamental logic (or, more properly, causality/time) is to our universe.

The answer then, of 'what is the opposite of logic', must be, to me, 'stasis'.

*I could also imagine a system whereby logic is valid based on other axioms, not just causality, like symmetry, so then we must try to imagine a state of existence without axioms. This would be a kind of fundamentally disorderly chaos, but again there would still be certain 'true' statements you could make about it using logical reasoning. So ultimately I think 'stasis' is close to the answer - a state of being within which reasoning is neither possible nor valid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually that's not true. Logic would always work if there are valid axioms upon which to perform syllogistic reasoning, which could be the case within a static system for an outside observer not bound by the stasis (e.g. the static state could exhibit symmetry - a valid axiom).

Therefore maybe what we're actually trying to define is a state of existence without any conceivable valid axioms. I can barely imagine it. This would be a state of existence without rules. A kind of pure potential state; some weird, pre-big-bang kind of reality. No rules, no time - a kind of existence essentially indistinguishable from non-existence.

In any case, I think the fundamentality of logic is probably beyond doubt: there is no 'opposite form of reasoning' that is not actually defined by it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think, causality, change, time, and existence are words for one concept itself, universe/cosmos that are all same in their essence. What comes with time, is a change, it has before and after, cause and effect, interraction, that is bounded to be, as it is existence itself that is changing.
I liked how you but things in orded.


Deleted member 16771 said:
Actually that's not true. Logic would always work if there are valid axioms upon which to perform syllogistic reasoning, which could be the case within a static system for an outside observer not bound by the stasis (e.g. the static state could exhibit symmetry - a valid axiom).

Therefore maybe what we're actually trying to define is a state of existence without any conceivable valid axioms. I can barely imagine it. This would be a state of existence without rules. A kind of pure potential state; some weird, pre-big-bang kind of reality. No rules, no time - a kind of existence essentially indistinguishable from non-existence.

In any case, I think the fundamentality of logic is probably beyond doubt: there is no 'opposite form of reasoning' that is not actually defined by it.
Click to expand...
@Deleted member 16771 what you think about Gödels imcompletenes theorem?


ps. I think, logic dictates that "universe" can not be self sufficient. With right axioms this can be deducted.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Hmm, I've never encountered that, I'll have to have a look and get back to you.
Click to expand...
Gödel showed that with in the axioms there are true statements that can not be proven by the axioms. "This statement can not be proved from the axioms."


Quote from wiki;


Euclid (holding calipers), Greek mathematician, 3rd century BC, as imagined by Raphael in this detail from The School of Athens.[a]
Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, "knowledge, study, learning") is the study of such topics as quantity,[1] structure,[2] space,[1]and change.[3][4][5] It has no generally accepted definition.[6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_mathematics



This article is worthy of time. Does it contain anything you think mathematics is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics



Actualized is smart guy, even tho I dont accept his concept of "strange loops". The begining of the video is worthy of watching.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top