Cosmological "pure" numbers

You seem to think of "logic" as the specific words used to formulate premises, reasoning, and conclusions, such as "If A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C."

I think of logic as being embodied in the principles it implies, such as the causality principle. So I note that A, B, and C have existence whether or not anyone is alive to know that, and that the three of them are causally related. That is what I mean when I suggest that the logic would still exist even if no one ever formulated it.

> [J]: I know of no one that claims axioms themselves can be proven with logic. They must be ACCEPTED, how can they be accepted completely devoid of the consequence of OBSERVING that they work?

Many types of logic adopt premises of unknown truth value, then deduce things from them, and test the premises based on how well the deductions agree with reality. In a relevant sense here, one can never prove any premise, only disprove some premises. But we can place a high value on premises that lead to correct conclusions over a broad range of conditions.

So while premises are not proved with logic, they are continually tested.

> [J]: I wave a magic wand and the whole universe disappears except for Tom V floating in an empty, black nothingness. You are now free to indulge in any logical system that you might devise...

I don't agree. Chapter one of my book starts with just such an empty universe (you see, I've already been there . I then argue from first principles that one and only one basic kind of universe is possible to exist, even though the details may differ in an infinitude of ways. But logic compels reality to have certain unique attributes even if sensient live never arises to appreciate that,

> [J]: you still not have given me the location of where or in what form other than metaphysical this pure logic of yours can exist.

See chapter one of "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets".

> [J]: I get the impression (perhaps wrongly) that you are advancing a completely clockwork universe that obeys mindless principles that just somehow "exist".

Logic, if correctly applied, dictates the nature of existence, and therefore of the universe. The principles of physics (different from the "laws" of physics, which can change) must be what they logically are whether we ever existed or not. We might be able to imagine a universe in which effects required no cause, or in which creation from nothing could happen, or other violations of physical principles. But imagining them does not make them possible.

I would generalize by saying that what we think has no influence on the nature of existence or the operation of the principles of physics. Time cannot go backwards and singularities cannot exist no matter how great the evidence NASA trots out at appropriation time each year. {-) -|Tom|-

>[Tom] Logic, if correctly applied, dictates the nature of existence, and therefore of the universe. The principles of physics (different from the "laws" of physics, which can change) must be what they logically are whether we ever existed or not. We might be able to imagine a universe in which effects required no cause, or in which creation from nothing could happen, or other violations of physical principles. But imagining them does not make them possible.<


Although I agree with this statement, I'd like to point out that philosophers have been arguing about these matters for ages—and still are. The thing that makes science different and which made the scientific revolution possible is the matter of proof. Methods were developed which showed how to prove a hypothesis quantitatively and experimentally. Logic is essential to the mix, and the objective logic of Dr. VF lies at the basis of modern science. Things and their attributes exist, and have an inherent logic, with or without the observer to observe them. But that logic must be discovered by men (or sentient beings). (A good book on this subject is "From Galileo To Newton," by A. Rupert Hall). I would be remiss in not pointing out also that philosophical subjectivism has made great inroads, in recent times, in eroding the kind of science which made the scientific revolution possible. This is the main reason why I am in favor of models like the Meta Model of science. Neil

>[nderosa] philosophical subjectivism has made great inroads, in recent times, in eroding the kind of science which made the scientific revolution possible.<

One can only agree with this observation. I know of no philosphical subjectivist who would drive over a suspension bridge designed without the benefit of principles underpinning physical stress calculations, or physics, or simple geometry. Knowledge has behavior as one of its forms. In some ways, might we say that this knowledge is stronger, more certain, and harder to overcome than that which is purely intuitive.

An observer exists, sharing an indivisibly congruent notion with another observer. Accept the example of this message, since all who happen to read this message will have shared the notion of the writer. The notion does not belong to the one, nor to the other, but it remains in existence none-the-less.

One may argue: if you had not written that message, the notion would not have existed. To which the reply must be made: once such an observer has existed, the existence remains after the observer has "ceased," as well as before the observer existed, in the form of contingency. Through observation, we are unable to deny phenomena being contingent on other phenomena to the limits of observation. To assume that our present limits of observation are those beyond which all phenomena are not contingent, is not science, but speculation. The limits of observation have been ever-advancing, but each advance has revaled only confirmation of the recurring notion of contingency.

What would distinguish our present moment in the history of advancing limits of observation? Perhaps only the present measure of subjectivism.