[Opinion] Non-normativity of Logic

[Shade]

So I ran across a thesis a while back and wanted to hear some opinions on it, I think it does well enough for what it is, I’ll cite the source below along with the link, (edited as I see shortened URL’s are against the rules)
it goes over different schools of logic and the inherent flaws of trying to find contradictions where there are no true contradictions, the truth is the truth and any contradiction of truth is in itself truthful, religious people may think of it as “it is impossible to blaspheme God” philosophers and poets may write something that hints upon -
the water of the cosmos reflects the future, the waters below are a reflection of what was - and what we do now is what will be, and what will be has already passed, but only to return. Like Dharma/Karma only.. This more closely mimics the idea of Indra’s net in Hinduism and Buddhism.

This thesis puts it in a… very wordy but thorough understanding of the inherent fallacies of contributing meaning - as all human perceptions are flawed, as all is true. which is not dissimilar to the first book of the Corpus Hermeticum. This tries to break it down in a digestible way by over complicating it imo.. “it is what it is, and what it is, is simply a flawed perception to those that are willing to see” Is a better way to put it. But Wansing breaks it down in a way that the less philosophical minded and more hard nosed book learned scholar can comprehend.
Likewise Schopenhauer eluded to this, Aleister Crowley after him and as mentioned, it was a concept long before either of them, or “a dream within a dream” by Edgar Allen Poe. The musings and philosophy of Lao Tzu- ect
Any thoughts WF?

Surely someone may find atleast the abstract of the thesis interesting enough to give it a read and give some contemplation to it.

Wansing, H. One Heresy and One Orthodoxy: On Dialetheism, Dimathematism, and the Non-normativity of Logic. Erkenn 89, 181–205 (2024).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or pdf version

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[SkullTraill]

Reading this paper and understanding its "proofs", arguments and counteragruments requires a strong grasp of formal logic and (I think) set theory as well.

I am not at that level (I know the basic rules and notation of formal logic and set theory - but I have to spend like 1 hour on each page to properly understand it), and I doubt most people on WF are and as such we are not equipped to meaningfully draw a conclusion from the paper.

A couple of things. The paper doesn't say "all is true" what it says is "all is either true or false" (it actively debunks dialetheism).

One thing I've always believed is that even though logic is one of the most fundamental and accurate ways of thinking about things (it transcends human thinking and is applicable to all sapient thought) it is still at the end of the day "thinking". It's still just an emergent phenomenon of an old, pre-exisiting, uncaring universe.

In that way I really agree with the whole non-normativity of logic perspective. Logic is just a thinking being's invention to think more accurately. Logic does not dictate what can or cannot happen, what the universe is capable of, etc.

I mean, it would, probably (some version of logic), if we had all the information, but we don't.

Now, that doesn't mean logic is useless, or that anything is possible, or that whenever you get called out for being illogical you can just say "BUT WAIT, LOGIC IS NON-NORMATIVE" as a cure-all for any kind of idiotic statement.

This paper, and these ideas are really on the topic of formal logic, where currently it is possible for you to make statements like S↔¬S (essentially means "This statement is false") which are obviously paradoxical. Logicians and some mathematicians then take it to mean that fundamentally, the universe (or things in it) can be both true and false at the same time (this is dialetheism) but this is just a classic example of people who study a field (typically logicians, mathematicians and set theorists) to believe that some fundamental flaw or paradox in their field equates to a flaw or paradox in real life. In the universe.

This is why I don't believe in allowing the deep study of a scientific field to cross over into meta-physics/philosophy and I really think people need to understand that the universe looks and behaves a certain way to thinking machines because thinking machines think and thinking itself is a spatial and temporal function/effect. The universe may behave very differently to a photon or an electron but we can never know because in order to think we must conform to certain criteria that by default exclude us from certain perspectives.

 

[Shade]

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

The paper doesn't say "all is true" what it says is "all is either true or false" (it actively debunks dialetheism).

If nothing is true then in essence everything is false - if everything is false then there is no objective truth. Thereby the conclusion is, having a perception of truth and non truths is a flawed state of being- all that remains is and would be nothing. - non existence if there is no truth, but since we can perceive, we can conclude this is not the case.
In the reverse if Everything is True then Nothing is false and if nothing is false we are in disharmony with the state of being we should perceive things.
doubt is the default state of human consciousness, (masculine and feminine, left and right, ect) this would make the case that all is true but we are unable to perceive the truth due to our dualistic nature and doubt.

 

[SkullTraill]

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

If nothing is true then in essence everything is false - if everything is false then there is no objective truth. Thereby the conclusion is, having a perception of truth and non truths is a flawed state of being- all that remains is and would be nothing. - non existence if there is no truth, but since we can perceive, we can conclude this is not the case.
In the reverse if Everything is True then Nothing is false and if nothing is false we are in disharmony with the state of being we should perceive things.
doubt is the default state of human consciousness, (masculine and feminine, left and right, ect) this would make the case that all is true but we are unable to perceive the truth due to our dualistic nature and doubt.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear again. "all is either true or false" was not supposed to mean "either everything is true, or everything is false" - it was supposed to mean "any thing can either be true or false, all things are either true or false". That's what the paper is saying, which is contrary to the currently accepted dialetheism which says "any thing is either true, false OR BOTH". It is the "both" at the same time part that this paper seeks to debunk.

Aside from that obviously not everything is true, and not everything is false. Some things are true, some things are false, and all things must be either true or false.

 

[Shade]

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear again. "all is either true or false" was not supposed to mean "either everything is true, or everything is false" - it was supposed to mean "any thing can either be true or false, all things are either true or false". That's what the paper is saying, which is contrary to the currently accepted dialetheism which says "any thing is either true, false OR BOTH". It is the "both" at the same time part that this paper seeks to debunk.

Aside from that obviously not everything is true, and not everything is false. Some things are true, some things are false, and all things must be either true or false.

the difference in interpretation could be that I see Truth and Facts as 2 separate things. I see Facts as more refined statistics but ultimately falls short in the bigger scheme of things. Is it True others can visually see spirits? Yes that is True in their perception they can see them, but science would say that it is not a fact.
I am looking at it in more of an abstract way, or the way I perceive it. I will go over it again and see if I missed something when I have time, but comments like yours are really helpful in the sense of people’s thoughts on it. I did add the caveat at top saying “I think it did well enough for what it is” not saying I 100% agreed with it but I think it is an interesting thesis nonetheless. I’m glad you took the time.

Post automatically merged: Jan 11, 2025

No, I think your assertion was correct but my assertion was correct as well -
I’m going to link sources to this thinking process in action at the end is the tldr version for your convenience.

here’s the peer reviewed physics paper that explain this thinking process in action in “physical reality”
(Which to deconstruct needs even further digging)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It was received extremely well and here is a follow up posted recently in “nature”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And here is the “tldr” version

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Which tbh I think is still too long for most people to read, find interesting or want to go through the trouble of deconstructing it all.

TLDR:
it leads back to there are perceived “Facts”- bosons and fermions are what we see in 3d but deconstruction of the 3d there was a third theoretical particle only observed in 2d- anyons
They are now having fun with that concept as before they were just perceived as
“ghost particles” but they are learning to understand them more; as well as the roll they play in the 3d.

That saying “facts don’t care about your feelings” extends to “the Truth doesn’t care about facts” emotions are just a deconstructed version of Truth that cannot be verbalized-
and facts are a narrow perception of them both.

 

[SkullTraill]

the difference in interpretation could be that I see Truth and Facts as 2 separate things. I see Facts as more refined statistics but ultimately falls short in the bigger scheme of things. Is it True others can visually see spirits? Yes that is True in their perception they can see them, but science would say that it is not a fact.
I am looking at it in more of an abstract way, or the way I perceive it. I will go over it again and see if I missed something when I have time, but comments like yours are really helpful in the sense of people’s thoughts on it. I did add the caveat at top saying “I think it did well enough for what it is” not saying I 100% agreed with it but I think it is an interesting thesis nonetheless. I’m glad you took the time.

That's a great personal opinion you have, but it has nothing to do with the paper, nor with any really standardised school of thinking. This is just some "well in my mind this kinda makes sense hehe" type shit. It's been debated among philosophers since the beginning of time that to which extent we can actually make objective claims/statements/observations.

That is to say it is debated whether facts are personal or universal.

But there's no meaning in saying "I see Truth and Facts as 2 separate things". Truth is just a fundamental property of of statements. If a statement is true, it is considered a fact. You're mixing up the poetic license that comes built in to the English language with actual formal logical axioms and statements.

"I see Truth and Facts as 2 separate things" - is just wordplay for your own head-canon, and it's not meaningfully able to be discussed. TBH that's why we invented fields such as logic and set theory, to remove the ambiguity when it comes to definitions of words and personal interpretations of language in general.

here’s the peer reviewed physics paper that explain this thinking process in action in “physical reality”
(Which to deconstruct needs even further digging)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This isn't the paper, these are the peer reviewers notes for the paper... Did you not know that?

It was received extremely well and here is a follow up posted recently in “nature”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And here is the “tldr” version

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Which tbh I think is still too long for most people to read, find interesting or want to go through the trouble of deconstructing it all.

How do you know it was received extremely well?

Are you asking me to believe that you understand the science and math behind this paper? Or have you just read through the abstract, cherry picked a few statements and words that seem to resonate with you, and then are now building a narrative in your head on how it all fits together with the first paper you posted?

Trust me, these papers have 0 connection.

TLDR:
it leads back to there are perceived “Facts”- bosons and fermions are what we see in 3d but deconstruction of the 3d there was a third theoretical particle only observed in 2d- anyons
They are now having fun with that concept as before they were just perceived as
“ghost particles” but they are learning to understand them more; as well as the roll they play in the 3d.

There are 10 trillion better examples or thought experiments to use to illustrate what you mean in this thread than trying to draw a connection to another extremely dense and relatively fringe physics paper. Like, what are you doing here? The first paper in the OP was a philosophy/metaphysics/logic paper, and this anyon paper is a particle physics paper...

Why are you using them together to try and illustrate a point? What even is the point?

I am certain you don't even scratch the surface of understanding the meat behind the anyon paper. So let's drop that nonsense for now, and go back to the original paper you shared and the real point of this thread.

Tell me, why do you think "everything is true" what part of the original paper you shared made you say that. Give me quotes and page numbers.

That saying “facts don’t care about your feelings” extends to “the Truth doesn’t care about facts” emotions are just a deconstructed version of Truth that cannot be verbalized-
and facts are a narrow perception of them both.

It's true that truth doesn't care about anything. But facts care about the truth. A fact must be true or believed to be true, otherwise it is just a statement, not a fact.

The truth doesn't care about your feelings either. The truth just is. That's really what people mean when they say facts don't care about your feelings. The only facts that your feelings affect are the facts about how you're feeling themselves. Nothing external to you. That's what people mean when they say that.

That being said, obviously if you subscribe to the idea that truth is personal/subjective and not universal/objective then the facts about how you feel are ostensibly the majority of facts in your bubble. So... fine I guess?


Just a personal piece of advice: In this forum section, you can freely share your ideas and philosophise about anything in an open-ended discussion. I don't require people to be academics to post here. So please don't pretend you are one. Don't pretend you read and understood a paper. Don't pretend you have academic backing for your idea. Don't pretend to grasp subjects and concepts that you don't.

You don't need to do that. You can just share an interesting idea here.

 

[Shade]

Don't pretend you read and understood a paper. Don't pretend you have academic backing for your idea.

Solid advice but I even mentioned to understand the first peer reviewed paper it would require more digging, (I put below it was received very well by other scholars) as you pointed out I’m not a scholar - but you have a point in the fact that yes this is a philosophy and psychology section, and the title is non-normative logic.
I guess a new thread could even be made on the difference of fact and truth as it’s seen through my eyes and the role emotions- facts- truth play but I think this thread has already hinted on it well enough.

It's true that truth doesn't care about anything. But facts care about the truth. A fact must be true or believed to be true, otherwise it is just a statement, not a fact

Yes we can agree on this - I just see facts as a more narrow perception of both, That’s the only difference.
”a Fact must be true or be believed as true” any fact can be changed to be not true within the right context or dimensional understanding. But I’ll save you the headache by not explaining deeper. 2+2=4 and a circle is not a sphere . 🖐️

 

[SkullTraill]

Solid advice but I even mentioned to understand the first peer reviewed paper it would require more digging,

Man I can just picture it in my head right now... Tomorrow morning, bright and early, you wake up, you put on a hard hat, safety vest... you walk out to a piece of barren, flat land on your property... You point at a flat section of dirt... you look at me, and say "shieeet, needs more digging". I'm like, "wtf are you on about more digging, there's no hole in the first place!"

I put below it was received very well by other scholars)

Yeah but where are you getting that from? Show me... Considering you don't regularly meet scholars for brunch at the University cafeteria, I'm expecting a link or something where it shows other scholars appreciating it. The peer review notes are not that. Peer reviews are like jury duty, it's their job to go over the paper and notice any glaring errors. Just because there are no major corrections, doesn't mean they receive it well or agree with it in any way.

but you have a point in the fact that yes this is a philosophy and psychology section, and the title is non-normative logic.

Yeah that's all I'm saying. Let's stick to the question of what the original paper means to you, and why. I'm still really waiting for an answer to why you think all must be true (in relation to what the paper has laid out) because I didn't get that at all from the paper. So I wanna know where in the paper you are getting this idea from?

I guess a new thread could even be made on the difference of fact and truth as it’s seen through my eyes and the role emotions- facts- truth play but I think this thread has already hinted on it well enough.

We need a new thread to talk about the boson paper, but really we don't cause none of us are equipped to even understand that paper, let alone debate it.

”a Fact must be true or be believed as true” any fact can be changed to be not true within the right context or dimensional understanding. But I’ll save you the headache by not explaining deeper. 2+2=4 and a circle is not a sphere . 🖐️

I agree to a point. Not any fact, but many facts, especially those relying on observations of external phenomena.

But, I would further clarify my position by saying that many facts can be made to be true by adding up to an infinite amount of qualifying assumptions/conditions.

But there are still facts that can never be true or never be false. At least within physics, mathematics, and formal logic. Those are really the realms where facts actually matter. In other fields (or as these fields get applied further) facts matter less than observations, feelings etc. For example fields like politics, psychology etc are almost entirely afactual.

Statements like "a circle is not a square" are common knowledge facts and are not qualified enough to be unfalsifiable. It's trivial for a mathematician to add qualifiers to make these statements false.

There are however more axiomatic or "definition based" facts that (as far as I know - as someone who isn't a mathematician or logician) that can never be falsified no matter what condition or qualifying statement you make. Such as: "For any integer n, n = n."

 

[Shade]

Man I can just picture it in my head right now... Tomorrow morning, bright and early, you wake up, you put on a hard hat, safety vest... you walk out to a piece of barren, flat land on your property... You point at a flat section of dirt... you look at me, and say "shieeet, needs more digging". I'm like, "wtf are you on about more digging, there's no hole in the first place!"

Lol sounds about right.

Yeah that's all I'm saying. Let's stick to the question of what the original paper means to you, and why. I'm still really waiting for an answer to why you think all must be true (in relation to what the paper has laid out) because I didn't get that at all from the paper. So I wanna know where in the paper you are getting this idea from?

Bottom line the paper was trying to dispel the slippery slope fallacy in dialetheism, the logic Pope used for dialetheism seems to amounted to Keenes logic in self referential statements
Where as Diamatheism seems to explore beyond the realm of self referential statements and avoid the inherent paradoxes… example. “This sentence contains four words” - one could say no.. it contains 5 words… I could argue no.. both are True because four is a set value (4)
This is what I got from the original paper
We all use different systems of logic which is why I thought the thesis was fascinating to get others opinions on it.

We need a new thread to talk about the boson paper, but really we don't cause none of us are equipped to even understand that paper, let alone debate it.

Cheers to that, I’m not well versed in physics but I thought you were more inclined, I put below the TLDR version as it does break down what the papers convey, even if the math itself goes over my head the principle is the same, taking a theoretical idea, displaying it in 2d and being able to play with it in 3d eventually to see how it’s employed and the affects it has to other particles in the 4d reality in which we currently reside. - before they could only call it a ghost particle. Same way some magicians connect with spirits, we know they are there it’s just refining a system that fits our perception in order to “summon/see/invoke/evoke them - Or what in science is called an anyon now with new breakthroughs they are a step further in it, but this extends to philosophy in the same way, our ideas and perceptions are so vastly different - what one may call insanity makes perfect sense to someone else. As you said above in the first part I quoted lol. “Why are you digging? There is no hole in the first place!”

• I can take that as - an insult, saying you don’t have any foundation to speak on this or I can take it how I think you meant it-
• “your logic/reasoning just doesn’t make any sense to me”

lol.
I prefer the latter, I rather metaphorically laugh than perceive things as purposely being cruel no matter the person or situation. (Which is paradoxical in itself as some situations really f-ing suck lol)
But nature is cruel and so is life.

Reasoning is inherently paradoxical which is what makes it a fun thing to look into. If you would like a more complex breakdown of different systems of logic it’s a bing search away. There are many of them and I ofc don’t have a full grasp on all of them but it’s fun to explore.

to an outside person my views reasoning/logic may not make any sense because there seems to be no inherent goal, but things aren’t always what they seem ya know? We all experience and perceive life differently. I refuse facts because they are only what seems to be true, even though they can be seen and tangible doesn’t mean there isn’t a deeper force at play.
however- as mentioned previously- I do focus on this perceived reality such as fixing and painting my house, connecting with family and I have a dog to take care of - things of that nature. But I find the pleasure in doing it. It’s not an obstacle to overcome- it’s life. Ngl family situations can be oof - but it’s time and consistency. Patience and practice. Like meditation or working out or any habit that lets you reach a more physical goal. The logic we employ can make things easier or harder.
which is why philosophy and psychology are so deeply intertwined

 

[SkullTraill]

Bottom line the paper was trying to dispel the slippery slope fallacy in dialetheism,

Well, it's not really a slippery slope fallacy in dialetheism as such. Priests argument was that there is a slippery slope in modern formal logic that he argued would lead to the inevitable acceptance/requirement of dialetheism. Wansing offers an alternative in dimathematism. (An alternative to dialetheism).

the logic Pope used for dialetheism seems to amounted to Keenes logic in self referential statements

While the paper discusses self-referential statements (e.g., paradoxes like "This sentence is false") as a significant motivation for dialetheism, it does so using formal logic frameworks like the Logic of Paradox (LP), not any specific personal or proprietary logic.

Also who is Keene(s)? What are you talking about?

Where as Diamatheism seems to explore beyond the realm of self referential statements and avoid the inherent paradoxes… example. “This sentence contains four words” - one could say no.. it contains 5 words… I could argue no.. both are True because four is a set value (4)

Dimathematism does not limit itself to self-referential paradoxes. Instead, it broadens the discussion by treating contradictions as informational phenomena. It views contradictions as being "supported" by certain informational states without asserting their metaphysical truth or falsehood.

While dimathematism avoids committing to metaphysical paradoxes, it does not necessarily claim to "solve" or "avoid" paradoxes like "This sentence is false." Instead, it reframes how logic can handle such contradictions.

Also, based on what logic are you saying "it is both true and false" of the sentence "This sentence contains four words"? The sentence contains 5 words, so it's false. By what logic are you saying it's true? The fact that it contains at least or more than 4 words?

We all use different systems of logic which is why I thought the thesis was fascinating to get others opinions on it.

That's why we have subjects such as formal logic and even why we standardise and teach language with relatively strict grammar and vocabulary. We all have different internal systems of logic, just as we all have our own slightly different language in our heads. I could say something to you in English, and you could completely misunderstand it, yes. But that's not to say there was no mistake made... one of us made a mistake. Or at the very least we didn't have complete information/some information was lost in the medium of communication. Etc.

But in academia, there are systems in place to avoid miscommunication. So it's not really about one persons system of logic vs another. There is a standard system of logic, and yes, we are constantly trying to improve it, but it's pretty good at the moment with minor exceptions such as the one the paper was addressing.

So if your argument is that we can never be certain about truths because we all have different systems of logic, I reject that notion. My opinion is that in some cases (not all) the truth is unknowable because all the required information to discern the truth is unknowable. It's an information issue, not an individuality issue.

I thought you were more inclined

I am, more than most. Maybe even more than you. But still, this is an extremely fringe paper (the anyon one). It is not mainstream particle physics, and it pulls out all the stops and uses everything it can to try and prove a very shaky point. I refute your claim that it was "well received". I don't think it was received at all. Being published in nature doesn't mean anyone agrees with you. It just means you put in enough effort and didn't fuck up hard enough to be filtered out. There is plenty of dipshit papers published in journals every month.

I put below the TLDR version as it does break down what the papers convey, even if the math itself goes over my head the principle is the same, taking a theoretical idea, displaying it in 2d and being able to play with it in 3d eventually to see how it’s employed and the affects it has to other particles in the 4d reality in which we currently reside. - before they could only call it a ghost particle. Same way some magicians connect with spirits, we know they are there it’s just refining a system that fits our perception in order to “summon/see/invoke/evoke them - Or what in science is called an anyon now with new breakthroughs they are a step further in it, but this extends to philosophy in the same way, our ideas and perceptions are so vastly different - what one may call insanity makes perfect sense to someone else. As you said above in the first part I quoted lol.

That's just some nonsense you formulated in your head from reading the abstracts/summaries. The paper is an abstract, purely mathematical model expressing a mathematical (not even theoretically physical) caveat of a potential class of paraparticles that could exist in >2 dimensions. If you don't understand the maths, you can't possibly understand the significance of this postulation. They are not a step further in anything, and there has been no parallel drawn to any "ghost particle" whatsoever.

“Why are you digging? There is no hole in the first place!”

• I can take that as - an insult, saying you don’t have any foundation to speak on this or I can take it how I think you meant it-
• “your logic/reasoning just doesn’t make any sense to me”

lol.
I prefer the latter, I rather metaphorically laugh than perceive things as purposely being cruel no matter the person or situation. (Which is paradoxical in itself as some situations really f-ing suck lol)
But nature is cruel and so is life.

Here's the thing though. I did mean it in the sense of you not having a foundation to speak on it (the physics paper). I wasn't saying "hehe it don't make sense to me but we are best buddies 4 evar". I quite literally was saying that I don't believe you understood the paper (FFS you linked me to the peer reviewers notes document thinking it was the paper - obviously you are not even remotely equipped to understand the paper).

That being said, it wasn't an insult. I myself am not equipped to fully understand that paper. We are (almost) in the same boat... so no, it wasn't an insult.

But still, that doesn't mean I will allow you (or allow myself to be convinced by you) to claim that you have any meaningful insight into that paper, let alone to connect it to this topic in any meaningful way.

Reasoning is inherently paradoxical which is what makes it a fun thing to look into.

What makes you say that?

If you would like a more complex breakdown of different systems of logic it’s a bing search away. There are many of them and I ofc don’t have a full grasp on all of them but it’s fun to explore.

Yeah? You don't have to tell me that. Explore all you like, just be aware your position and capacity to truly understand these things you read, and don't try to use them in other arguments that you have no ability to draw similarities to (because you weren't able to understand the actual content of the papers themselves). You don't have to understand everything you read about, you don't even have to fully understand anything to talk about it. But you do have to understand it to draw conclusions and parallels in other topics.

to an outside person my views reasoning/logic may not make any sense because there seems to be no inherent goal, but things aren’t always what they seem ya know? We all experience and perceive life differently. I refuse facts because they are only what seems to be true, even though they can be seen and tangible doesn’t mean there isn’t a deeper force at play.
however- as mentioned previously- I do focus on this perceived reality such as fixing and painting my house, connecting with family and I have a dog to take care of - things of that nature. But I find the pleasure in doing it. It’s not an obstacle to overcome- it’s life. Ngl family situations can be oof - but it’s time and consistency. Patience and practice. Like meditation or working out or any habit that lets you reach a more physical goal. The logic we employ can make things easier or harder.
which is why philosophy and psychology are so deeply intertwined

Bit of yap here, there's nothing for me to really respond to.