[ernestombayo7]

Grip_daddy i started this thread after your thread on perception and reality.
Though the topic is unrelated but they both have fundamental issues at hand.

The laws of logic in which we use to reason and figure out how stuff works are reffered to as abstract objects.
They exist "abstractly" not materially.
for example 1+1=2
the logic is if u add one item to another item you get two items.and this applies to all matter and physical things.
So it means that the rules of logic apply to the universe as a whole.

Now the 1st big question is,have the rules of logic existed since the beginning of the universe?

The most obvious answer would be yes.Its highly improbable,even impossible to posit that before human beings 1+1=3.
so even though humans have grasped logic and formed concepts which try to understand the workings of the universe,it seems that these logic existed before humans.

otherwise if someone says that "logic is just man's ways of understanding stuff"

then this raises the question.
Does it mean that the rules of logic do not actually exist?they conceptually exist?
that 1 tree plus another tree is not really two trees.it can be anything.
this sounds absurd.

what if someone says "We can never know whether the rules of logic were the same as they were 2 billion years ago"

then that raises another problem.the rules of logic therefore seem "temporary".
1+1=2 is temporarily true.it may have been different billions of years ago.and it may even change in the future to be false.it seems impossible;e to imagine how two material objects will equivalent three or four.


So it seems plausible that the rules of logic have existed since the beginning of the universe.But then does it mean that logic in the absence of the universe does not exist?
The universe is material,in the absence of matter does 1+1=2, seize to exist or apply?

There is no reason to think so.
Consider the proposition

Our Universe exists = true.

the statement above is correct.but what would the statement above be if there was no universe?

Our Universe exists = False

so it seems that logic can still be used in the absence of a universe.otherwise the above statement could be either true or false.

So logic is actually eternal.transcends time and space.

Would like your views on the matter.

[grip_daddy]

Logic is perception. Under what logic do we have 1=3=1? Trinity doctrine must be under some other perception that is not material as we know it.

Or under what logic can 1 entity be existing at all possible places simultaneously? Omnipresence must be under some different logic.

I'll give my counter arguments to your examples later on, for now I got to go.

[ernestombayo7]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Logic is perception.

This means then Logic really does not exist.But denyin logic also means denying reality.Otherwise why would our perceived logic corresponds soo well with the natural world.eg why would our predictions about gravity be correct if they are only illusions?

It seems that a denial of the existence of logic means a denial of the existence of any meaningful human reality.

Under what logic do we have 1=3=1? Trinity doctrine must be under some other perception that is not material as we know it.

i look at the trinity doctrine as a set G(F,S,J). G=God,F=Father S=holy spirit and J =jesus the son.

so the universal set G= God contains the father the son and the holy spirit.

Or under what logic can 1 entity be existing at all possible places simultaneously? Omnipresence must be under some different logic.

unless your timeless and not bound by space.

The problem with asking why logic is so and so,is bound to take you in circles because logic itself are tautologies.
A=A
if you negate this, -A=A you get a contradiction.

universe exists = the universe exists

cannot be

universe does not exist = universe exists.

[grip_daddy]

universe does not exist = universe exists.

I wanted to continue from this angle, thanks for rephrasing it like this.

My definition of perception does not mean that we negate reality, but that the reality we perceive in the way we do might be different if we had a better way of passiving it, or from an absolute timeless observer.

1+1=2 is a true perception under our laws of material existence. What if such laws were totally different? That what we see or perceive as 1 could be perceived as 3 (or any other entity that could be possible)?

Let's see this from our perception of photon spin. According to our laws and ability to interpretate signals, we see an individual photon have two (maybe more) directional angular spins simultaneously. My reasoning is that if we had a better way to view the photon, we could see it behaving "normally"...or we could see material classic matter behaving as photons?

What if each eye were not able to synchronise the objects? What if they formed two images of each object and that could mean a different set of thinking framework?

Ok, let us say that universe exist = true is a logical statement according us. With our logics, we would say that universe exist = false (as at now) is illogical...but from my 1900 vs 2000 thread, I postulate an observer who can see in the past, when universe exist = false is a true statement. In that thread, I also see a possibility of being an observer who is able to see both statements to be true where it could be written:

universe exist = x

where x = true, false, or both true and false simultaneously.

According to this absolute observer, the statement universe exist = true is but a subset accepted by a being whose understanding is finite.

[grip_daddy]

i look at the trinity doctrine as a set G

I look at the Trinity doctrine as a reality existince in more than three dimensions (maybe infinite dimensions) where possibility of a single entity can be in multiplicity.

There is a website with a better analogy but I cant seem to remember it. I'll briefly explain...

Take for example characters on your screen that you can view. Let's pick two F and K. Assume that F is facing (seeing) K while K is showing his back to F due to the strokes coming from the I line. Now imagine that the characters are arguing about reality and perception, how can they explain things in three dimensions?

If you place a cube above them, what will they interpretate it to be? Remember F or K cannot turn to look towards you because their world is limited to two dimensions...the front pane can only face top of the screen, opposite side, bottom, and other angles in that circle.

If their sound reception also can only be received in two dimensions, and you produce a three dimensional sound, how do you think they will interpretate that sound?

So basically to them, a single cube can be made to mean multiple planes, lines, or dots of entities depending on angle of view, but the reality is that the cube is single.

To explain further, imagine F moving to a corner where he can view the edge of the cube, he will see a line, if the cube stretches itself, F can see it as a plane (which to it will mean another entity), then if the cube turns some angles, F may see a corner of the cube but as a dot, which to F is a different entity.

If the speed or frequency at which the cube changes to new position is faster than F can detect (we cant detect by looking at a bulb that alternating current is switching on and off), he will conclude that he has seen three gods, and be confused when this god (the cube) tells him that he is one.

So, since we are limited to our three dimensional way of logics, we can only perceive as far us we are restricted by our finite abilities to reason.

[ernestombayo7]

I wanted to continue from this angle, thanks for rephrasing it like this.

My definition of perception does not mean that we negate reality, but that the reality we perceive in the way we do might be different if we had a better way of passiving it, or from an absolute timeless observer.

yes i do agree with you.As an absolute observer you might be able to see points of reality that are not perceivable to humans,but that does not negate or change the points which were already visible by the observer.

I do not see how A=A can be seen differently by an absolute observer.Unless its a mirage an A is something else totally.
it therefore seems that some rules of logic are universal,and they are unchangeable.
Not to confuse Rules of Logic to perceived reality.Reality can be distorted by our perceptions,but Logic cannot be.

If God is the absolute logical being,then it follows that he cannot be illogical.He can't change 1+1=3.
not because he has no power to,because its against his will.

the same way God cannot destroy himself,it would go against his will.

1+1=2 is a true perception under our laws of material existence. What if such laws were totally different? That what we see or perceive as 1 could be perceived as 3 (or any other entity that could be possible)?


are you implying that if you have 1 item and another item you will have more than two items?where will a third one come from?Such a reality i would argue is not possible.
As long as you have matter, 1+1=2.
I do not know what kind of matter would total 3.

Let's see this from our perception of photon spin. According to our laws and ability to interpretate signals, we see an individual photon have two (maybe more) directional angular spins simultaneously. My reasoning is that if we had a better way to view the photon, we could see it behaving "normally"...or we could see material classic matter behaving as photons?

but you forget photons are massless.They occupy no space.

Ok, let us say that universe exist = true is a logical statement according us. With our logics, we would say that universe exist = false (as at now) is illogical...but from my 1900 vs 2000 thread, I postulate an observer who can see in the past, when universe exist = false is a true statement. In that thread, I also see a possibility of being an observer who is able to see both statements to be true where it could be written:

universe exist = x

where x = true, false, or both true and false simultaneously.

I concede this to be correct.But this applies to timelessness only.then what would we do with the statement

True=true

can true be false or false be true? is truth an absolute?
if true=true then that is one aspect of logic that holds even in a timeless environment.

if True=false
false=true


then it even possess a problem for God.because the proposition

God=exists

can either be true or false.

[grip_daddy]

I do not see how A=A can be seen differently by an absolute observer.Unless its a mirage an A is something else totally.
it therefore seems that some rules of logic are universal,and they are unchangeable.

Universal rules of logic? I would like to know how possible it is for us to perceive them, or even apply them. For example now that it is possible that to God, I am already with Him in heaven...how many are we in heaven already? That to Him I am already dead, or to Him I have not been born? These ideas of a timeless observer are just too obscure or complicated for me to comprehend.

Not to confuse Rules of Logic to perceived reality.Reality can be distorted by our perceptions,but Logic cannot be.

How do we reason (logically deduct/induct information) outside our perception?

If God is the absolute logical being,then it follows that he cannot be illogical.He can't change 1+1=3.
not because he has no power to,because its against his will.

the same way God cannot destroy himself,it would go against his will.

God cannot destroy Himself is kinda interesting to imagine. Is it just like a possibility that God chooses not to do rather than an impossibility? Like God choosing not to control my will?

are you implying that if you have 1 item and another item you will have more than two items?where will a third one come from?Such a reality i would argue is not possible.

If we can just imagine how or what 1 item is from the absolute observer's point of view! If you ask me I will say, "I don't know, and I can't give a verdict that it is impossible." If I will comprehend this, I will surely be able to give an explanation to ONE God who says, "There is no one beside me" and reveals Himself in three. Remember also the Spirit is revealed as SEVEN.

As long as you have matter, 1+1=2.
I do not know what kind of matter would total 3.

As long as we hold to our perception of matter, the intuition accepted for entries 1 and 2, then this logic is true, which will be a subset of a TRUTH that I said is beyond my comprehension.


but you forget photons are massless.They occupy no space.

And they interact with mass...and they can be counted as 1, 2, etc. (or how do you know that this is a single photon?) OK, imagine a wave form. If you have a crest (that is 1 item), and a trough (that is another 1 item), then you combine the two...1+1 you wont get two items (a crest and a trough), but you will get nothing...no wave existed at the point of combination...meaning 1+1=0 in some spheres of existence.


True=true

can true be false or false be true? is truth an absolute?
if true=true then that is one aspect of logic that holds even in a timeless environment.

if True=false
false=true


then it even possess a problem for God.because the proposition

God=exists

can either be true or false.


Is stating True=True, the same as stating grip_daddy exist = true? I think as earlier on agreed, True = True is the absolute observation TRUTH which encompasses all the possible results of grip_daddy exist. Grip_daddy exist can be true, false, or both simultaneously of which answer that can be chosen at any random time will still fit the statement True=True.

[ernestombayo7]

grip_daddy,

I must say that you have poised some good critcs to my points abovet.but i'll answer them Kesho.

[ernestombayo7]

Grip_daddy

Universal rules of logic? I would like to know how possible it is for us to perceive them, or even apply them.

its pretty simple.by using statements like 1+1=2 seems to be true anywhere in the universe.As long as it pertains to matter.

Note:i am not saying that what we know about logic has to be that way,i am saying that we must use logic.The rules may not be the way they are,but the bottom line is we are using logic.And that seems like an absolute.
otherwise we will have no way of reasoning.

so when i say that Logic is transcendent,i mean that Logic has to be used in any part of the universe,and God being the most intelligent being and creator of the universe,its part of his nature to be logical.

So in essence logic is not man-made,its not an illusion.It would be meaningless to call God intellegent if he was illogical himself.

If Logic was an illusion or really did not exist,then its pointless discussing anything,whether discussing Logic,perception of logic etc.

Infact that statement itself is self-refuting

There is no Logic,

then someone could ask,have you reasoned logically to come up with that statement?

I am not sure whether you were saying that logic as we know it may be totally different from the real Reality or you were saying that logic may not be transcendent.

If your saying that logic may be different from the real reality,and our perceptions may be too limited to get the rel picture,then i guess the burden of proof lies with you to show us what the real reality is.
How could we ever prove that reality is different without using our 5 senses?

I suggested that if you agree that our knowledge and reasoning about the universe corresponds very well,then it seems futile to say that some other reality of the same nature,matter and universe exists yet its unprovable by our 5 senses.It could be true,but then its impossible to ever prove it.
Or if there is another reality,then its basically redundant to our basic needs of life.

though there is one exception,for a Theist then heaven is a relevant reality which is not perceived by us.Since Christians believe in a dual type of existence between the soul and body.

God cannot destroy Himself is kinda interesting to imagine. Is it just like a possibility that God chooses not to do rather than an impossibility? Like God choosing not to control my will?

Its both against His will and against his properties.He's unchangeable and eternal,thus it would be in contradiction to these properties of himself.
Ofcourse part of God's nature is being logical.and him destroying himself would result to logical contradictions.

its like asking "Can God become evil"?

And they interact with mass...and they can be counted as 1, 2, etc. (or how do you know that this is a single photon?) OK, imagine a wave form. If you have a crest (that is 1 item), and a trough (that is another 1 item), then you combine the two...1+1 you wont get two items (a crest and a trough), but you will get nothing...no wave existed at the point of combination...meaning 1+1=0 in some spheres of existence.

but unlike any other matter,photons obey the laws of quantum mechanics.
I do grant that quantum mechanics seem to disobey many things we know about reality.like being in two places at a time.

PS:just a question,is the spin of a photon 0 or 1?

[grip_daddy]

Ernest,

I think since I assert that our logics is a subset of the absolute logics, it can be said that we are in agreement. Grip exist = true as at now.

I also think that our inability to know, perceive, or apply the logics as could be true in other subsets could mean that our persistence to rely on science and our known subset of logics only, could be misleading. Grip exist = false as at now can also be true.

That there is a point outside space-time where all subsets of logics unite and hold true. Grip exist = true/false holds as true whichever value chosen as at now.

So the subset of our reality is true, and the subset of reality we cant perceive equally true. Paul said that what we cant perceive is actually more real than what we can perceive, meaning we are illusionated to some extent about reality.

Why would someone say that angels cannot pass through walls? Or that God cannot be in all places simultaneously? Such boastful assumptions make me say that logics is perception (the logics used to arrive at such conclusions).

What would humans say when one day, from the absolute point of observation, conclude when maybe we will observe that actually motion is non existent?

PS. I know from quantum computers, that a spin (or electron value for data storage) can be in the form of qubit taking a value of either 1, 0, or both simultaneously.