Need help: Really struggling with relativism right now

[Ben_Sinner]

There are a few things that keep me from moving on and start to question absolute truth. I need some help in getting rid of these hang-ups and put these issues at rest

#1 is the concept of paraconsistent logic.

It is a logic that believes that contradictions can be true such as “There are no absolutes”, “This sentence is false”, and other statements that contradict themselves.

One post made earlier in the week mentioned this and it kind of scares me:

“Gödel discovered that any logical system powerful enough to perform arithmetic could be used to talk about itself. He did this by converting every logical formula to a unique integer, using a technique he devised known as Gödel numbering. Having done so, he proved that if he added to the logical system an axiom “This logical system is consistent”, he could use that axiom to prove the opposite “This logical system is not consistent”.”

And the fact that I’ve heard that some people used paracosinstent logic in mathematics.

#2 is the fact that logic isn’t just thinking. It is a system created, and there are other systems. Some contradict each other.

#3 is the fact that EVERYTHING comes down to what we believe. Even that statement comes down to belief…and belief about believing that statement and on and on and on

So pretty much I need to get rid of these 3 lines of thinking:

1. Things can be true and untrue at the same time.
2. Classical logic is outdated while paraconsitent logic and others are more accurate.

These two things have caused me to be in constant confusion and anxiety because I’m not really sure what to believe. “Can things really be true and untrue at the same time?..That means that Christ could have been the Savior and not the Savior at the same time?”…etc.

I would appreciate some really solid rebuttals of these claims that attack traditional logic.

 

[SuperLuigi]

1-2)

Sorry, but there is only one Truth, and that is Jesus.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Everything in Nature is paradoxical
Everything in humanity even more so
Everythinng in God yet more so again.

Doesn’t Scripture say His depths are unutterable !!!

Let’s relax in wonder and serenity at His provision and providence and ask Him to relate with each of us personally in a more vivid manner.

Amen Glory Brother.

 

[John_Martin]

Ben,
Jesus asked, “Who do men say that I am?”
And there were various answers.

The question is, when this One looks at you and asks, “Who do you say that I am, Ben?”

He is asking, literally, and what do you say?

Personally, I do not care what other people, thinkers, philosophers, may speculate (theirs is mere speculation, after all) - I am with Jesus, and with Him I will come to know all things in due time. Literally all things.

And the Church is from Him, so the Church is the One to whom I turn to learn all things, in dogmatic statements at first, which over time I find that I can get them to fully detail until “I understand” in full.

Gödel is not going to promise anyone eternal life, nor establish a Kingdom from God, nor infuse you with Virtue so you can confidently claim, “I am going to do my doings virtuously today”, certain that you will succeed. It is not teachings we follow as Catholics, but a real person. Gödel would have you pay attention to ideas; Jesus would have you look at Him.

Pray; interact with the real Person; - He is where you will be alive, not in finding an absolute argument to end all speculations. He is right in front of you, and you can have him without knowing anything for sure, yet with him you will come to know all things in certainty, just by knowing him more and more. He is Truth, even if Pilate bemused “what is truth?”. Search after Him for now and after nothing else. Ask Him, “Who are you, Lord”, as St. Paul did on the highway to Damascus, then spend time like Paul did, coming to know who He is.

With Him you are with the solution all the while you are understanding more and more. With Him you are not "moving toward an answer (that evades you, as is happening now), but you are always in the company of the Answer that will never change, but you will see it ever more clearly.

Go to Mass. Contrition for your sin; Listen to the Gospel from Him; Confess Him in the Creed “You are the Christ”; Lift up your Heart to the Lord (it is right and just); Hear him tell you to Take and Eat His Body, to Take and Drink from the cup of His Blood; then Eat; then Drink; then Thanks be to God. Go every day if you can (I would if I could, but must settle for once a week).
Go to confession; Contrition for your sin, Listen to your sins forgiven; listen for the penance restoring you to active participation in the People of God; perform the penance in gladness - you are again walking with Jesus.
Keep assisting at Mass - you will understand more and more week after week, year after year.

 

[HelenRose]

There are a few things that keep me from moving on and start to question absolute truth. I need some help in getting rid of these hang-ups and put these issues at rest

#1 is the concept of paraconsistent logic.

It is a logic that believes that contradictions can be true such as “There are no absolutes”, “This sentence is false”, and other statements that contradict themselves.

One post made earlier in the week mentioned this and it kind of scares me:

“Gödel discovered that any logical system powerful enough to perform arithmetic could be used to talk about itself. He did this by converting every logical formula to a unique integer, using a technique he devised known as Gödel numbering. Having done so, he proved that if he added to the logical system an axiom “This logical system is consistent”, he could use that axiom to prove the opposite “This logical system is not consistent”.”

And the fact that I’ve heard that some people used paracosinstent logic in mathematics.

#2 is the fact that logic isn’t just thinking. It is a system created, and there are other systems. Some contradict each other.

#3 is the fact that EVERYTHING comes down to what we believe. Even that statement comes down to belief…and belief about believing that statement and on and on and on

So pretty much I need to get rid of these 3 lines of thinking:

1. Things can be true and untrue at the same time.
2. Classical logic is outdated while paraconsitent logic and others are more accurate.

These two things have caused me to be in constant confusion and anxiety because I’m not really sure what to believe. “Can things really be true and untrue at the same time?..That means that Christ could have been the Savior and not the Savior at the same time?”…etc.

I would appreciate some really solid rebuttals of these claims that attack traditional logic.

I have come to the conclusion that logic is not a god but a useful tool.

Just like every other useful and wonderful tool our creator has given us, logic can be used for good when used responsibly. And just like any good and useful tool, logic is used for evil when logic itself is worshiped as a god.

With or without logic we are not able to understand the mind of God. We can only wonder at His beauty and search for truth with love and humility.

 

[eazyduzit]

Western logic is what blocks the mind from hearing God.
If you would like to learn one way to hear God’s voice, You Tube “Mark Virkler”.

 

[fhansen]

There are a few things that keep me from moving on and start to question absolute truth. I need some help in getting rid of these hang-ups and put these issues at rest

#1 is the concept of paraconsistent logic.

It is a logic that believes that contradictions can be true such as “There are no absolutes”, “This sentence is false”, and other statements that contradict themselves.

One post made earlier in the week mentioned this and it kind of scares me:

“Gödel discovered that any logical system powerful enough to perform arithmetic could be used to talk about itself. He did this by converting every logical formula to a unique integer, using a technique he devised known as Gödel numbering. Having done so, he proved that if he added to the logical system an axiom “This logical system is consistent”, he could use that axiom to prove the opposite “This logical system is not consistent”.”

And the fact that I’ve heard that some people used paracosinstent logic in mathematics.

#2 is the fact that logic isn’t just thinking. It is a system created, and there are other systems. Some contradict each other.

#3 is the fact that EVERYTHING comes down to what we believe. Even that statement comes down to belief…and belief about believing that statement and on and on and on

So pretty much I need to get rid of these 3 lines of thinking:

1. Things can be true and untrue at the same time.
2. Classical logic is outdated while paraconsitent logic and others are more accurate.

These two things have caused me to be in constant confusion and anxiety because I’m not really sure what to believe. “Can things really be true and untrue at the same time?..That means that Christ could have been the Savior and not the Savior at the same time?”…etc.

I would appreciate some really solid rebuttals of these claims that attack traditional logic.

Don’t worry, because aside from what you may think, you’re also not at all struggling with relativism at the same time. If paraconsistent logic is valid.

 

[Trident_H]

Don’t worry, because aside from what you may think, you’re also not at all struggling with relativism at the same time. If paraconsistent logic is valid.

lol

 

[Trident_H]

Hey Ben. Look. It’s also true that if a guy divides his journey into equal halves every time he takes a step he’ll never arrive. But he does get there. He does show up. So sometimes logic is just a clumsy tool. It’s an approximation of rightness. Not an exact measure.

Peace Ben. And relax. You’re over-thinking the simple.

-Trident

 

[John_Martin]

Well, I have to say…I agree with the above, because a lot of what we believe to be true comes from perception and experience.
Two people can look at a shirt and one says it’s blue and another says it’s green…and both can be right.

In the example you pose re Jesus…since we can’t prove it either way, there will some who think it’s true that he’s the savior and some who think it’s not true.
In this case, unlike the shirt example, one must be “the truth” I imagine…but since we don’t know which for sure, then we will have people believing opposite truths.

.

The reality observed, being the measure of our perception’s accuracy, would require both people looking at the shirt to revisit the shirt rather than continue obstinately with their perception, to compare whether they have seen the same color, whether they both use the same word for that frequency of light or not. In the end, the shirt is one, and both can see it together and say, “I see it, and its color, and that is the color I call blue (or green), but it is the same as you are seeing since the frequency of light it reflects does not change with who is looking at it”.
And with Jesus, he himself, not our perception of his truth, must be re-visited as the measure of who he is, since he himself is the measure of his reality and capacity to save.
Why are you saying to give up because many people hold to many understandings.

These people are not the measure of the truth, but rather the object they disagree about is the measure and the reality which we desire to know. Get to know the object (Jesus)

 

[You]

Well, I have to say…I agree with the above, because a lot of what we believe to be true comes from perception and experience.
Two people can look at a shirt and one says it’s blue and another says it’s green…and both can be right.

In the example you pose re Jesus…since we can’t prove it either way, there will some who think it’s true that he’s the savior and some who think it’s not true.
In this case, unlike the shirt example, one must be “the truth” I imagine…but since we don’t know which for sure, then we will have people believing opposite truths.

.

.

We can prove it, I think. Don’t want to just contradict you or anything.

If I take out a quark and put it on my desk to examine it I can know a few things about it.
It is real, it exists. It does not contradict itself, if it did then it would not exist. So the quark is true. And only the quark itself exists. Its contradiction does not exist. So the quark is true. It is the Truth.
If I worship one of your shirts it is only because I believe that it is the Truth. Even though it is just one of your shirts I am still worshipping the Truth, the only difference being that I don’t know what the Truth is, only that it does exist.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Logic used for evil?
Logic worshipped as *a God?
*
I’ve never seen or heard of anyone doing such a thing. You know people who do this?

.

Most generations of philosophers have mostly subtracted from the sum of human knowledge (though some have definitely added to it in some ways). The world is too influenced these days by Hume and Spencer (I admit both are only at second-hand to me).

The general public senses vaguely that what is brand-named “philosophy” largely doesn’t have to do with anything any more.

Somewhere there is true logic which is an extremely good thing.

Hence my allusions to obvious context like Nature, Humankind, and God. God fully intended His Wonderful creation to expand minds. Outside the present universe, it has been discovered, there are four dimensions of space!

I love to see how God works through landscapes and peoples. That explains history, languages, spirituality, economics, geology, metallurgy, chemistry, meteorology, biology, agriculture, what have you.

Hence personality and experience are the most important “base lines” in the progression of concepts in true logic, and other branches of philosophy.

Maybe “worshipping logic as a god” is like putting up a statue to the Unknown God in Athens but not being curious what Paul had to explain about Him when he eventually came to visit them. Praise God, many did “wanna know”.

Ben, we can believe not only as if it is a “stupid” thing people like us have to fall back on doing for lack of any better way, but also because there ARE real things, TO believe!

The real revolution is that there is real reality around us AND that we are real ALSO, both at the same time. That blows most “philosophers” out of the water!

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

We can prove it, I think. …
If I take out a quark and put it on my desk to examine it I can know a few things about it.
It is real, it exists. It does not contradict itself, if it did then it would not exist. So the quark is true. And only the quark itself exists. Its contradiction does not exist. So the quark is true. It is the Truth.
If I worship one of your shirts it is only because I believe that it is the Truth. Even though it is just one of your shirts I am still worshipping the Truth, the only difference being that I don’t know what the Truth is, only that it does exist.

 

[rossum]

It is a logic that believes that contradictions can be true such as “There are no absolutes” …

There is no logical problem with that statement, provided it is not claimed to be an absolute statement. If it is not self-referential, i.e. it is not itself an absolute, then it does not entail a paradox. “There are no unicorns” is not a paradox because the statement “There are no unicorns” is not itself a unicorn.

See also my sig.

… “This sentence is false”, and other statements that contradict themselves.

That is a genuine paradox. However, there are cases where apparently paradoxical statements are correct. We could, for instance, use a four-valued logic:

• this chessboard is white.
• this chessboard is black.
• this chessboard is both black and white.
• this chessboard is neither black nor white.

Because a chessboard is a compound entity, then it can have opposed properties without any paradox. The black squares are black, the white squares are white and the chessboard is a compound of black squares and white squares. Since effectively everything we deal with in the macroscopic world is a compound entity, then such paradoxes are common.

It is also worth pointing out that normal logic is based on the macroscopic world available to our senses. It fails, and fails badly, at the quantum level. Quantum Mechanics is very strange with many violations of standard logic. A particle can simultaneously be a wave. A single particle can be in two different places at once. Events can happen without a cause.

One post made earlier in the week mentioned this and it kind of scares me:

“Gödel discovered that any logical system powerful enough to perform arithmetic could be used to talk about itself. He did this by converting every logical formula to a unique integer, using a technique he devised known as Gödel numbering. Having done so, he proved that if he added to the logical system an axiom “This logical system is consistent”, he could use that axiom to prove the opposite “This logical system is not consistent”.”

And the fact that I’ve heard that some people used paracosinstent logic in mathematics.

Mathematics is an axiomatic system. It is built on a selected set of axioms, so changing the axioms will change the outcome. For example, Euclidian geometry uses one version of the parallel axiom. Spherical geometry uses a different version of the parallel axiom and hyperbolic geometry uses a third version of the same axiom. The outcome depends on the axioms selected. Gödel showed that any reasonable powerful axiomatic system must be inconsistent at some level. This result only applies to axiomatic systems; it does not apply to non-axiomatic systems. It is an open question as to whether the real world is itself an axiomatic system, or if it is merely that the human brain is able to construct a reasonably good model of the real world using an axiomatic system.

It may well be that Gödel’s discovery does not actually apply to the real world, but only to our internal model of the real world. It is important to realise that those two are different. Our senses are imperfect, so our internal model is built on imperfect sensory information and hence our model is also imperfect.

rossum

 

[SimmieKay]

These two things have caused me to be in constant confusion and anxiety because I’m not really sure what to believe. “Can things really be true and untrue at the same time?..That means that Christ could have been the Savior and not the Savior at the same time?”…etc.

I would appreciate some really solid rebuttals of these claims that attack traditional logic.

Ben, I’m sorry to hear some of the things I’ve said about paraconsistent logic have made you feel anxious or doubtful of your faith. That was never my intention. I believe in paraconsistent logic, yes, but I don’t think it needs to be an attack on absolute truth or on the Catholic faith.

Classical logic says: “All contradictions are false”. Now, I don’t agree with that. But I will say: “The vast majority of contradictions are false; one should never believe something you know to be a contradiction to be true without a sufficiently good reason”. Now, possibly such sufficiently good reasons exist when we are discussing certain mathematical and linguistic paradoxes - such as the liar paradox or Russell’s paradox. However, when it comes to “Christ is both the Saviour and not the Saviour simultaneously”, or “God both exists and does not exist”, I simply don’t think we have any good reason to believe such contradictions are true, so we should say that they are false.

Classical logic contains a total ban on contradictions being true. Paraconsistent logic allows exceptions to that ban, but we don’t need to be generous with the exceptions: with the result that classical logic still mostly applies - we haven’t abolished the rule against true contradictions, we’ve just allowed occasional exceptions to it.

So classical logic is not necessarily “outmoded”. If we are on a philosophical quest, to attain a complete account of human reasoning, I believe it is incomplete. However, for many purposes - including vast areas of mathematics - it works perfectly fine. I see classical logic as something somewhat inaccurate, but in many cases that inaccuracy is irrelevant. It is a simplification, and sometimes simplifications are very helpful.

And the fact that I’ve heard that some people used paracosinstent logic in mathematics.

It is a valid topic of research in mathematics, yes. But, we shouldn’t overestimate its importance. A few mathematicians research it, but most don’t pay much attention to it.

#2 is the fact that logic isn’t just thinking. It is a system created, and there are other systems. Some contradict each other.

There are two different ways of looking at logic. One way is that it is a system of rules. In that sense, there are hundreds of different logics that logicians study, just as there are hundreds of different card games, and none of them is more right than another (just as no card game is more right than another).

In another sense, logic is trying to formalise rationality, it is trying to reduce the question of what ought we believe? to a system of formal rules. Now in that sense, if we believe that Rationality, that Reason, is an objective reality, we can judge formal systems of logic based on how well they match that objective reality. And here we face real differences of philosophical opinion - some will insist that the law of non-contradiction is an absolute law of objective reality, others will say it is not. So the former will see classical logic as matching well with objective reality, and paraconsistent logic as fitting poorly; the latter will think the reverse.

I don’t know if we can definitely prove one party right here and the other wrong. (Of course I am sitting on one side of this debate, but I could be on the wrong side.) But, belief in objective reality doesn’t require us to believe that we can know, right now (or even in this life), who is right, simply that someone is right and someone else is wrong, even if we don’t know who is which. Surely, if no human ever proves one side definitively right, God will tell us in the world to come.

I think rationality is comparable to ethics. Just as there are different ethical systems, so there are different rational systems (logics). Now, belief in objective ethics requires us to believe some ethical system is more right than the others, but it doesn’t require us to know with certainty which ethical system is the right one, only to believe that somehow eventually we could find out. There is a lot of disagreement about which ethical system is right, sometimes near irresolvable - but the existence of disagreement, and the difficulty of resolving it, doesn’t prove ethics is non-objective; in the same way, disagreement about which logic is right, and the difficult of resolving that disagreement, doesn’t prove that logic is non-objective.

Of course, for a Catholic, while the Church does not claim to have definitively answered every possible question of moral theology or moral philosophy, there is a great deal of Church teaching one can draw on in answering the question of which ethical system is best. By contrast, I’m not aware of any official Church teaching on which logical system is best, so on that matter individual Catholics need to make up their own minds.

Simon

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… It is also worth pointing out that normal logic is based on the macroscopic world available to our senses. It fails, and fails badly, at the quantum level. Quantum Mechanics is very strange with many violations of standard logic. A particle can simultaneously be a wave. A single particle can be in two different places at once. Events can happen without a cause. …

Mathematics is an axiomatic system. It is built on a selected set of axioms, so changing the axioms will change the outcome. For example, Euclidian geometry uses one version of the parallel axiom. Spherical geometry uses a different version of the parallel axiom and hyperbolic geometry uses a third version of the same axiom. The outcome depends on the axioms selected. Gödel showed that any reasonable powerful axiomatic system must be inconsistent at some level. This result only applies to axiomatic systems; it does not apply to non-axiomatic systems. It is an open question as to whether the real world is itself an axiomatic system, or if it is merely that the human brain is able to construct a reasonably good model of the real world using an axiomatic system.

It may well be that Gödel’s discovery does not actually apply to the real world, but only to our internal model of the real world. It is important to realise that those two are different. …

rossum

Rossum, I love your example of black-and-white thinking!

“There’s a little bit of bad in the best of us, and a little bit of good in the worst of us.”

Just because squared circles undoubtedly exist doesn’t mean black is white or that right and wrong are the same. In “life on life’s terms” they are mixed up very “messily” which is what the Pope keeps telling us not to be afraid of.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

To summarise what SimmieKay posts, as an outsider to this exciting field I would venture that the paraconsistent logic you have heard of doesn’t attack traditional logic, it complements it. It’s only some people that allege that it attacks it.

We should put ourselves in the shoes of people that knew Europe. Full stop (roughly speaking). Suddenly - shock horror - there was more of the world!

Also, from Ostend one can catch a train to Cologne. From Cologne one can catch a train to Frankfurt. Just because one is in Ostend doesn’t mean one can’t get to Frankfurt or that one doesn’t believe it exists.

 

[inocente]

If I take out a quark and put it on my desk to examine it I can know a few things about it.
It is real, it exists. It does not contradict itself, if it did then it would not exist. So the quark is true. And only the quark itself exists. Its contradiction does not exist. So the quark is true. It is the Truth.

If you are arguing for absolutes, words such as ‘true’ need to have an agreed meaning, in which case it’s meaningless to say that a quark (or a dog or a smell) is true, or that a quark/dog/smell is the Truth. The word ‘true’ means “being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false”. So only statements about a thing can be true or false, not the thing itself. Similarly ‘contradiction’ is about statements about things, it’s not a property that a quark/dog/smell can possess.

On the other hand, if you’re arguing for relativism then I guess the word ‘true’ can mean whatever feels good to you today .

 

[Rynard]

You should never have named your alias, “Ben SINNER.” Because of that, you were overlooked by the angel of mercy, and therefore are alone to fight off the demons and spare your destiny.

 

[inocente]

1. Things can be true and untrue at the same time.
2. Classical logic is outdated while paraconsitent logic and others are more accurate.

These two things have caused me to be in constant confusion and anxiety because I’m not really sure what to believe. “Can things really be true and untrue at the same time?..That means that Christ could have been the Savior and not the Savior at the same time?”…etc.

I would appreciate some really solid rebuttals of these claims that attack traditional logic.

My understanding is that paraconsistent logic was developed to supplement, not replace, traditional logic. For example where traditional logic runs of of steam with a contradiction in a moral dilemma, paraconsistent logic may (or may not) help focus on the exact nature of the contradiction.

You should never have named your alias, “Ben SINNER.” Because of that, you were overlooked by the angel of mercy, and therefore are alone to fight off the demons and spare your destiny.

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation including a CAF username or paraconsistent logic, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Rom 8