TPF : What is Logic

[Gnomon]

What is Logic?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... t-is-logic

It seems to me like this question often produces three types of responses:
1. Logic is a set of formal systems; it is defined by the formalism.
2(a). Logic is a description of the ways we make good inferences and determine truth, or at least approximate truth pragmatically.
2.(b). Logic is a general description of the features or laws of thought. (This is more general than 2(a).
3. Logic is a principle at work in the world, its overall order. Stoic Logos, although perhaps disenchanted. — Count Timothy von Icarus

My abbreviated answer to "what is Logic" might be : Mathematics with Words. Note the connection of Greek Logos with the notion of Words as encapsulated ideas about the world and how it works. The values of Math are expressed in abstract numbers (quantity), while the values of Logic are expressed in terms of statistical probabilities (oughts).

Mathematics is the formalism of the physical structure (interconnections) and natural laws (relationships) of the material world. Just as mathematical Physics allows humans to predict the outcome of physical processes, mental Logic allows us to infer (educated guess) a future state of human metaphysical processes, such as Politics. Unfortunately, as with the order-within-chaos of weather patterns, human freewill makes even logical forecasts (e.g. inferences by think tanks) of political outcomes dicey.

[Gnomon]

I think where it seems wrong to me is that it presumes that because causation only pertains to the phenomenal sphere, then it says nothing about ‘the world in itself or its meaning’. I think that’s an unreasonable inference. But I’m interested in what others have to say about it. — Quixodian

From my Information-based perspective, I think your intuition is correct. There is a connection between phenomena (world) and noumena (mind). However, the meaningful "connection" is not a phenomenal object, but a noumenal relationship : a logical link. It's a relationship between "world in itself" and meaning in the observer.

As Hume noted*1, Causation is an inference, not an observation ; a conception, not a perception. What we observe is changes in material objects from T1 to T2. But the causal force we call Energy is invisible & intangible, hence unobservable. We attribute the power of causation to some imperceptible enforming Force at T1 to explain the perceived Effect at T2. A phenomenal event is a physical transformation from state A to state B. As in physical Phase Transitions (e.g. liquid water to solid ice), the before & after states are are observable, but the intermediate cause that connects them is only inferrable. And Logic is the ability to imagine plausible interrelationships between things & events.

For a zombie, Causation may "only pertain to the phenomenal sphere". But for rational beings Causation is significant to the observer, not just for what happened to an object, but for what could happen to the subject*2. That a physical change has occurred in the non-me world is meaningful to me because I am an integral part & participant in that objective world.

Phenomenal Change is what we interpret as Noumenal Causation*3. Change is physical & material, but Causation is metaphysical & mental. Perhaps the notion of causation says as much about the the subject as the object. Without change in the world, to which we accredit causation, there would be no meaning in the mind.

*1. Causation as conjunction of states :
Causation is a relation between objects that we employ in our reasoning in order to yield less than demonstrative knowledge of the world beyond our immediate impressions.
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/

*2. Objective Data vs Subjective Information :
Data is a collection of facts, while information puts those facts into context. While data is raw and unorganized, information is organized. Data points are individual and sometimes unrelated. Information maps out that data to provide a big-picture view of how it all fits together.
https://bloomfire.com/blog/data-vs-information/
Note --- Context includes observed and observer

*3. EnFormAction :
The novel concept of Enformation is also a synthesis of both Energy and Information. So I invented a new portmanteu word to more precisely encapsulate that two-in-one meaning : “EnFormAction”. In this case though, the neologism contains three parts : “En” for Energy, “Form” for Shape or Structure or Design, and “Action” for Change or Causation. But Energy & Causation are basically the same thing. And the “En-” prefix is typically used to indicate that which causes a thing to be in whatever state or form or condition is referred to.
https://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

[Gnomon]

I’ve noticed ‘Laws of Form’ but when I tried reading it, found it quite daunting. Maybe we should start a discussion group on it. — Quixodian

I'm not a logician, mathematician, or electrical engineer, but I am somewhat informed on the philosophical concept of Form. Especially as it applies to essential or causal Information --- To Enform : the act of creating recognizable forms : designs ; patterns ; configurations ; structures ; categories. Generic Information begins in the physical world as mathematical ratios (data points ; proportions, 1:2 or 1/2) in a starry sky of uncountable multiplicity. Hence, we begin by clumping cosmic complexity into symbolic zodiac signs relating to local significance. In an observing mind, that raw numerical data can be processed into meaningful relationships (ideas ; words). Or, in a mechanical computer, those ratios are analyzed reductively into either/or (all or nothing) numerical codes of digital logic : 100%true vs 0%true. This is probably the most elemental form of categorization, ignoring all degrees of complexity or uncertainty.

The Wikipedia article on Brown's book, Laws of Form, notes a primary requirement for the human ability to know (grasp intellectually) any Form in the world, first "draw a distinction"*1. Rather than sketching an arbitrary encirclement, this precondition seems to assume that the categorizing mind is trying to "carve nature at its logical joints". First a particular "form" (thing) must be selected (differentiated) from the universal background (the incomprehensible multiplex) of manifold Forms (holons) adding-up to a complete system (universe ; all-encompassing category). A holon (e.g. steak) is a digestible bit or byte from a larger Whole Form (e.g. cow), a comprehensible fragment. Human Logic requires a rational (ratio-carving) knife & fork for its comestibles. But, is the world indeed inherently logical in its organization, or do we have to use the axe-murderer approach : whack, whack?

Semiotician Gregory Bateson defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference"; referring to personally significant meaning in the subjective mind. Plato's theory of Forms defined them, not as phenomenal objects, but as noumenal categories of thought : "timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas". Aristotle went on to classify human thoughts into distinguishable categories*2. More recently, modern neuroscientists have attempted to discover how the human brain filters incoming sensations into recognizable "classes of things"*3 (e.g. dog vs cat ; apple vs orange). Each of those categorical Forms is a meaningful distinction for the purposes of a hungry human mind.

Brown's book is over my head, but the notion of logical categories seems to be necessary for understanding how the human mind works as it does. And that need for pre-classification may provide some hint as to why we tend to overlay the real world with an innate template, in order to begin to understand its complexity of organization. First, we draw a circle around a small part of the whole system. Then, with manageable pieces, we can add them up into broader categories, or divide them into smaller parts, right on down to the sub-atomic scale, where our inborn intuitive categories begin to fall apart, becoming counter-intuitive. Hence, the weird notion of Virtual Particles. Is there a natural limit on our ability to encapsulate? Or can we go on imagining novel Forms forever?


*1. Laws of Form :
"The first command : Draw a distinction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form
Note --- In mathematics the distinctly-defined categories, of things that logically go together, are called “Sets”. However, so-called “set theory paradoxes” are not necessarily logical contradictions, but merely counter-intuitive. Does that mean the human mind can imagine sets or categories that don't fit into the brain's own preformed pairings?

*2. Aristotle’s Categories :
Hence, he does not think that there is one single highest kind. Instead, he thinks that there are ten: (1) substance; (2) quantity; (3) quality; (4) relatives; (5) somewhere; (6) sometime; (7) being in a position; (8) having; (9) acting; and (10) being acted upon
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... ategories/
Note --- Perhaps the "single highest kind" of category is the universe itself.

*3. Category Learning in the Brain :
The ability to group items and events into functional categories is a fundamental characteristic of sophisticated thought. . . . . Categories represent our knowledge of groupings and patterns that are not explicit in the bottom-up sensory inputs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3709834/
Note --- Our incoming sensations are typically randomized by repeated interactions & reflections (e.g echoes). So the brain/mind must sift out the grain from the chaff. Hence, evolution seems to have winnowed the winning organisms down to a few with the "right stuff" for correctly categorizing the fruits & threats of the game of life. Those inputs may include novel Forms that our ancestors have never encountered before in eons of evolution. So how can we make implicit Logical patterns explicit enough for categorical assimilation?