How to prove that there isn't a "higher logic" to what we have already?

[Ben_Sinner]

I’ve been trying to conquer this obsessive question in my head that wonders if our logic is false and there is a “higher logic” out there that contradicts everything our normal logic concludes.

I’m not talking about God in the “God’s ways are not our ways” type of argument. I’m talking about just a secret, occultic knowledge, that supersedes everything we think to be true in the laws of logic.

For example, the laws of logic like causation, non-contradiction, first cause, etc. is irrefutable with our normal logic, but maybe there is a “higher logic” where things like causation, non-contradiction, first cause, ect. ARE FALSE, we are just too “ignorant” of this higher logic, thus our normal logical conclusions are erroneous.

So basically the sum of my question is how can we trust that our logic is a true reflection of reality and there isn’t some mysterious occultic logic that supersedes it and exposes it as false?

 

[John_Martin]

Congratulations on going past 1000 posts, Ben,
Not sure if it speaks to your question, but here is what I wrote in another thread:

There was no “pre-universe”, and no pre-universe non-existence:
Creation-wise, there is only creation and there was only creation.

Only in the LORD is there “God knowing ‘God Alone’ and knowing ‘not God’ in the same knowing to Him, but we contemplate or think of each as ‘separate places in the knowing of God’ '”

Creation 'from nothing", might be said to be two “focuses in God”, where we know Him knowing.
Where we contemplate Him knowing himself alone, there is the material nothing, the ‘not-creation’.
And where we contemplate God knowing ‘not-God’, there is creation and there we ‘are’ and have our being.

In our being as creation, we are sensibly and materially (yet intelligibly to contemplation) actualizing in matter all the ‘not-God-that-is-with-God’ knowing of himself as God.

You could say that God’s knowing is that ‘occultic knowing’ because of ‘how he knows’ differently than we know.

 

[PJH_74]

Honestly I’m not exactly sure what you are looking for, but the rise of scientific thinking, I think is what you are getting at, was in itself a move towards higher understanding. Is there anything beyond this? I think one thing might be the conundrum of the reconciling the Einsteinian (planets, acceleration, gravity, time, etc.) physics and what we know about subatomic behaviour. This issue has been looked at for many decades and I can guarantee anyone who contributes to the final answer is getting a nobel prize. The point being that I think bridging this gap might require and provide a tangible new way of thinking as it might require a leap from “if then then this” sort of thinking.

 

[STT]

I’ve been trying to conquer this obsessive question in my head that wonders if our logic is false and there is a “higher logic” out there that contradicts everything our normal logic concludes.

I’m not talking about God in the “God’s ways are not our ways” type of argument. I’m talking about just a secret, occultic knowledge, that supersedes everything we think to be true in the laws of logic.

For example, the laws of logic like causation, non-contradiction, first cause, etc. is irrefutable with our normal logic, but maybe there is a “higher logic” where things like causation, non-contradiction, first cause, ect. ARE FALSE, we are just too “ignorant” of this higher logic, thus our normal logical conclusions are erroneous.

So basically the sum of my question is how can we trust that our logic is a true reflection of reality and there isn’t some mysterious occultic logic that supersedes it and exposes it as false?

What do you mean with higher logic?

 

[Ben_Sinner]

What I mean is like an “enlightened” or “illuminated” state of mind that would show our normal way of thinking as incorrect.

All our knowledge is based off of normal logic we use. We never experienced anything beyond that, so we assume that is the only that is a true reflection of reality.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

What I mean is like an “enlightened” or “illuminated” state of mind that would show our normal way of thinking as incorrect.

All our knowledge is based off of normal logic we use. We never experienced anything beyond that, so we assume that is the only that is a true reflection of reality.

We use logic that is limited to the natural universe. When we stand in the presence of God there will be a sort of “enlightenment” of understanding His nature. However, these is no higher “enlightenment” that we can achieve as limited, human creatures. God may grant us an increased perception for a time, such as when He revealed Himself to the prophets or when he gave St. Faustina her visions, but this is not a higher level of human intellect or understanding; it’s God granting them a gift.

 

[Wesrock]

Ben, the question is as unhelpful as me questioning how I can know the phone I’m holding is real. In my perceptual-logic system, it is. But how do I know there’s not some higher reality logic that proves it’s not real?

I don’t believe I can prove to you that this phone is real, or that there isn’t some higher logical system we cannot understand. But it seems like a depressive, fruitless spiral towards never being sure of anything, and not in a good way.

 

[o_mlly]

,So basically the sum of my question is how can we trust that our logic is a true reflection of reality and there isn’t some mysterious occultic logic that supersedes it and exposes it as false?

Because we cannot prove a universal negative, e.g., there are no black swans.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I’ve been trying to conquer this obsessive question in my head that wonders if our logic is false and there is a “higher logic” out there that contradicts everything our normal logic concludes.

I’m not talking about God in the “God’s ways are not our ways” type of argument. I’m talking about just a secret, occultic knowledge, that supersedes everything we think to be true in the laws of logic.

For example, the laws of logic like causation, non-contradiction, first cause, etc. is irrefutable with our normal logic, but maybe there is a “higher logic” where things like causation, non-contradiction, first cause, ect. ARE FALSE, we are just too “ignorant” of this higher logic, thus our normal logical conclusions are erroneous.

So basically the sum of my question is how can we trust that our logic is a true reflection of reality and there isn’t some mysterious occultic logic that supersedes it and exposes it as false?

Suppose there is such a higher logic where contradictory statements are true. One of those statements would be “nothing can be and not be at the same time and in the same respect”, which is our principle of non contradiction. Therefore, there would be a sub-logic that would be constructed on the basis of this principle. And that logic would be precisely our logic. So, you don’t have to worry, Ben. Your logic would be true at any rate.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Because we cannot prove a universal negative, e.g., there are no black swans.

Australia has Black Swans, the only White Swans here are in Zoos. However, I am being literal.

Ben I remember watching a baby, my baby , continue trying to taste a lemon.

Lemons are bitter, babies like to put everything in their mouth to explore it.

So my baby was given a lemon slice because he really wanted to try it. We thought, he will try it, realise its bitter, and give up his single minded preoccupation of wanting this lemon.

Were we wrong! My baby kept trying it, pulling faces when the bitterness hit his tastebuds, then he kept going back for another taste. With, of course, the same result.

Was his logic that really this lovely looking fruit from that great tree, whom everyone fusses over, then puts in delicious food,

Going to eventually conform to his baby reality of turning into great food.

Perhaps this is the human condition of logic.

There is an exercise where people will fail to see objects that surround them. See if I can find the link. Basically things hidden in plain view.
They do say we only use less then 10% of our brains.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Logic and reality applied to “hidden in plain view”.
This was told to us recently in a Homily by the Priest.
So there were 2 guys, known as smugglers operating regularly across a border. What they were smuggling had not yet been determined. The common items - weapons, drugs, cash, people, native fauna, tobacco , were suspected.

Every time these guys made a border run on their MC’s they were stopped and searched. Never anything was found, ever.

One day , years later in the pub, retired smuggler met up with retired border cop. The retired cop asked where the smuggled items were hidden. It had puzzled him for years. . The retired smuggler replied. ’ we were smuggling MC’s across the border. We were sitting on them, riding them.

Or like today’s Gospel about the 2 Disciples meeting the Risen Jesus on the road. And not recognising Him until He broke bread.
So I guess my point is that we can’t trust our logic truely reflects reality. But the limitations on this are human driven, anthropological in origin.

There is no mysterious occultic logic at work. That’s just a lie of he who is going to get his butt kicked back to hell by St Michael.

 

[Tyrel]

I’ve been trying to conquer this obsessive question in my head that wonders if our logic is false and there is a “higher logic” out there that contradicts everything our normal logic concludes.

I’m not talking about God in the “God’s ways are not our ways” type of argument. I’m talking about just a secret, occultic knowledge, that supersedes everything we think to be true in the laws of logic.

For example, the laws of logic like causation, non-contradiction, first cause, etc. is irrefutable with our normal logic, but maybe there is a “higher logic” where things like causation, non-contradiction, first cause, ect. ARE FALSE, we are just too “ignorant” of this higher logic, thus our normal logical conclusions are erroneous.

So basically the sum of my question is how can we trust that our logic is a true reflection of reality and there isn’t some mysterious occultic logic that supersedes it and exposes it as false?

Well, one way to do this is to show that there are at least some modal statements which are necessary across all logically possible modal logics. Grant, for the sake of argument, that mathematical intuitionists aren’t wrong to reject the law of excluded middle, and that paraconsistent logics (in which the law of non-contradiction is neither an axiom nor a theorem) can’t be casually dismissed; fine, but what of Putnam’s minimal principle of contradiction? It says that not every single proposition is both true and false. Without that, almost no system of logic can be erected at all. If you think maybe some queer version of fuzzy logic can help the skeptic navigate around that objection, then consider an amended principle (one I have proposed before): not every fundamental truth-bearer has every truth-value. That, it seems to me, is absolutely necessarily true. To deny it is flatly irrational.

Nevertheless, you may wonder about whether some higher system of logic satisfies this minimal principle of contradiction, but still abandons the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle (etc.). If such a logic exists, then it would have to maintain that from a contradiction, explosion does not follow (on pain of violating the minimal principle of contradiction). So we can know at least those things about it. In this way I think we can actually work out more about it (for instance, it will have to include, at best, a restricted, rather than unrestricted, principle of revisability - for neither of the two principles we’ve seen could be revised, and nor could the principle of revisability be revisable (unless it were relatively restricted)). So, I think it is still inevitable that we admit that there is an objectively necessary modality, and that it includes at least some facts discernible by the use of our rational faculties (and known for certain).

I think we shouldn’t be shy, however, about using rational intuition. Even if you think that rational intuition isn’t indefeasible, we are perfectly within our epistemic rights to use it and claim that we can know things through it, in an even firmer way than we can know anything by experience.

 

[seagal]

I’ve been trying to conquer this obsessive question in my head that wonders if our logic is false and there is a “higher logic” out there that contradicts everything our normal logic concludes.

I’m not talking about God in the “God’s ways are not our ways” type of argument. I’m talking about just a secret, occultic knowledge, that supersedes everything we think to be true in the laws of logic.

For example, the laws of logic like causation, non-contradiction, first cause, etc. is irrefutable with our normal logic, but maybe there is a “higher logic” where things like causation, non-contradiction, first cause, ect. ARE FALSE, we are just too “ignorant” of this higher logic, thus our normal logical conclusions are erroneous.

So basically the sum of my question is how can we trust that our logic is a true reflection of reality and there isn’t some mysterious occultic logic that supersedes it and exposes it as false?

The usual way of proving something is by starting out with something observed. For instance, scientists have been trying for decades to find black holes and still haven’t found one, but based on solid evidence they believe such holes exist. Do you have any reason to believe that such higher logic should exist? That’s where you need to start.

 

[Rhubarb]

When you say logic, I assume you mean academic logic, so I’ll post using that as my premise.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘higher logic’. I mean, in one sense, first-order logic is ‘higher’ than simple sentential logic in that it’s more complicated and can handle sentences that sentential logic can’t. But for simple sentences, both work just as well. I wouldn’t call one ‘higher’ than another.

The logics we use are for analyzing language - it just so happens that sometimes it maps pretty well onto ‘the world’. The syntax rules of the various logics are all stipulated by us - we could invent some weirdo logic with bizarre connectives, and so long as we design these bizarre connectives properly, the system can be consistent as first-order logic. It just won’t map as well to reality.

So I guess in some sense, there might be some complicated weirdo logic that maps better to reality that we, as mortals, can’t see. Though I doubt my answer will satisfy anyone.

 

[hicetnunc]

Hi Ben;

It’s an interesting question. While I’m sure you’re just thinking through a “thought-experiment”, I do come across this claim from time to time from my students who will try to argue that our logic is not necessarily true as we may discover a “higher logic” in the future (it’s a version of scientism, which often suggests that, while we don’t have evidence for atheism now, science can give us this in the future. The argument comes in various forms).

I think there are two, solid responses to the “higher logic” claim showing it to be both materially and formally flawed.

First, the “higher logic” claim falls prey to the fallacy of the argument from ignorance: we may know something later which we do not know now, but which will nonetheless undermine what we know/believe now. It’s a fallacy because we can’t draw conclusions in an argument from what we don’t know; not knowing something cannot form the basis of any kind of meaningful inference. If we think of what we know as having a value “1” and what we don’t know as having a value “0”, then we will always only be able to infer what we do have: 1 + 0 = 1.

Secondly, the suggestion itself that there may be a higher logic that undermines what we know to be true now is a self-refuting and circular claim because it relies on the use of logic/notion of truth we have now in order to pose a new logic/notion of truth which will undermine the logic/notion of truth we have now, and which we are relying on to establish the possibility of a new, contradictory logic; and two, either a claim is true, or not true. You can’t, in other words, use the truth to demonstrate that there is no truth!

Hope this helps…very thought-provoking, and a useful exercise to help us reaffirm what we know to be true. Many thanks,

Hicetnunc