Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Does logic and reason need to explain everything in the world ? Or there are things that cannot be understood even with their use ? Things which are beyond logical explanation. What would be these things if they exist ?

no

No. Logic requires a frame of reference and somethings require a leap of faith. For example. logically explain nothingness to me.

nothing is beyond logical explanation.

The sad thing is, logic is completely dependant on data. Data is dependant upon technolological advances to collect it.

There are many things that are "unexplained". They are unexplained not because they are illogical or we are unable to understand them. They are unexplained because we humans in our present state do not yet have the technololgy to gather the data to research and understand them. Lack of knowledge does not mean lack of logic. It simply means we lack the knowledge to build understanding of the subject.

everything that any person on earth believes could fall into this category. Everything from Aliens, Big Foot, multiple-dimensions, ghosts, etc.

example:

what if "ghosts" do emit some sort of energy that is readable......we just haven't discovered this energy because we lack the technology to detect it. right now that makes the subject, "unexplained". One hundred years from now we may have the technology to not only read this energy but to study ghosts. That makes it none-the-less logical today. We just haven't discovered the logic.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
nothing is beyond logical explanation.

The sad thing is, logic is completely dependant on data. Data is dependant upon technolological advances to collect it.

There are many things that are "unexplained". They are unexplained not because they are illogical or we are unable to understand them. They are unexplained because we humans in our present state do not yet have the technololgy to gather the data to research and understand them. Lack of knowledge does not mean lack of logic. It simply means we lack the knowledge to build understanding of the subject.

everything that any person on earth believes could fall into this category. Everything from Aliens, Big Foot, multiple-dimensions, ghosts, etc.

example:

what if "ghosts" do emit some sort of energy that is readable......we just haven't discovered this energy because we lack the technology to detect it. right now that makes the subject, "unexplained". One hundred years from now we may have the technology to not only read this energy but to study ghosts. That makes it none-the-less logical today. We just haven't discovered the logic.

However, nothingness does not exist and therefore, to logically discuss nothingness is imposable.

"nothingness" is merely a concept...........not something physical. It exists only in a person's mind. It could never be anything physical as by very defintion, it is without any physical definition or trait.

The existence of ghosts is illogical.

explain.

Thats interesting... actually what made me ask this question was a theorem in mathematics that says that every logical system is incomplete and contradictory in itself, in other words it means that every logical system is wrong because we can always find a contradiction on it. So it means that while we use logic to understand the universe, like in science, there will be always a contradiction and something will be missing, therefore science will never fully explain it.
So I was thinking maybe we need another way of understanding things

correct. All logic really is taking known data about any specific subject and determining likelihood. Therefore unless you have all data/knowledge that exists about that specific subject, something will always be missing. There is however no way to know that you have all data/knowledge about any subject.

Well...
Knowing what we know about the human body and how it works, there is no evidence of the spiritual energy that would be required for ghosts to exist.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
correct. All logic really is taking known data about any specific subject and determining likelihood. Therefore unless you have all data/knowledge that exists about that specific subject, something will always be missing. There is however no way to know that you have all data/knowledge about any subject.

So, that would make knowledge more about knowing what you don't know than what you do know.

well....let's see. First off.......what is a ghost? People claim to see them all the time but what are they?

- are they the spirits of dead human beings?
- are they manifistations of beings which exist in our universe without mass?
- are they beings in other dimensions that for reasons unknown become visible in ours at times?


Since we don't even know what ghosts are.......we have no data/knowledge on the subject at this time. For something to be illogical, it must directly contradict what is known about the subject. If nothing is known at all about the subject, there is no data at all.....how can it be contradicted? How can data be contradicted if it doesn't even exist yet?

again I ask you, Explain.

um...I'm not sure you belong in this discussion my friend. I don't think you're grasping it very well.

Percieving something as logical means it fits in with the already known data about the subject. It has nothing to do with "knowing what you do not know". If you see an animal with 4 legs and 0 wings, it is logical to presume the animal walks and does not fly. Even if you've never seen the animal move. The theory fits in with the known data about the animal.

If for something to be illogical it must directly contradict know data, and if that theorem states that in every logical system we can always find a contradiction, then logic is illogical.

Q.E.D.

correct.........in essence anyway. The system would not be illogical....only the small portion of data that is contradictory. But yeah, the philosophy behind your statement is correct.......if it is true. I myself do not see why every logical system would have a contradiction. where did you get that from?

Originally posted by Evil Dead
um...I'm not sure you belong in this discussion my friend. I don't think you're grasping it very well.

Percieving something as logical means it fits in with the already known data about the subject. It has nothing to do with "knowing what you do not know". If you see an animal with 4 legs and 0 wings, it is logical to presume the animal walks and does not fly. Even if you've never seen the animal move. The theory fits in with the known data about the animal.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
All logic really is taking known data about any specific subject and determining likelihood. Therefore unless you have all data/knowledge that exists about that specific subject, something will always be missing. There is however no way to know that you have all data/knowledge about any subject.

You said it right here. ^ You can know almost everything about a certain subject, but you'll never know everything about it. To me, this makes figuring out what you don't know about it more important than what you do know.

Logic isn't so clearly defined as it's more the perception of the person applying the reasoning. My logic might not necessarily be your logic.

yes

perhaps you just mis-stated what you were trying to say earlier. That is the point to all scientific theory/hypothesis.......to put yourself on the right path to learn more about the subject.




agreed......to a degree. In all terms however, logic is dependant upon the known information about a subject. If there is no known information it cannot be considered "logical" by any person. That would just be a mis-use of the word.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
well....let's see. First off.......what is a ghost? People claim to see them all the time but what are they?

- are they the spirits of dead human beings?
- are they manifistations of beings which exist in our universe without mass?
- are they beings in other dimensions that for reasons unknown become visible in ours at times?


Since we don't even know what ghosts are.......we have no data/knowledge on the subject at this time. For something to be illogical, it must directly contradict what is known about the subject. If nothing is known at all about the subject, there is no data at all.....how can it be contradicted? How can data be contradicted if it doesn't even exist yet?

again I ask you, Explain.

We know they are an energy. We know that the images mimic humans that have died. Based on the knowledge that we do have, ghosts do not fit in with our understanding of nature. EDIT: I meant to add, we do not even know ghost DO exist in first place.

But enough about ghosts. I would like to point out one thing, though. You have used the word "know" quite often in this thread. How is it that you "know" the information you are gathering on a subject is definitely correct? (Strictly from the "brain in the jar" point of view).

I study physics at college, and I have to know those things, but it is called Gödel´s incompleteness theorem and it states that any logical system, set of rules, that kind of thing is imcomplete or contradictory in itself. A example often used to explain it would be:

consider the statement "this statement is false", now if its true it would be false, and if you say its false then it has to be true. And the theorem says that a contradiction like this one can be made in any logical system.
If you want to read more about this I quickly searched in the Internet about this, and here what I´ve found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I study physics at college, and I have to know those things, but it is called Gödel´s incompleteness theorem and it states that any logical system, set of rules, that kind of thing is imcomplete or contradictory in itself. A example often used to explain it would be:

consider the statement "this statement is false", now if its true it would be false, and if you say its false then it has to be true. And the theorem says that a contradiction like this one can be made in any logical system.
If you want to read more about this I quickly searched in the Internet about this, and here what I´ve found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem

In a way this is very simple: We use symbols and sounds to represent ideas. These ideas are parts to a model (a concept that functions as close to real as possible). A model is not real, and "real" is not a model: it's like digital and analog, digital can never make a sign-wave as true as analog.

your last sentence, your edit completely negates the entire pararaph that preceeds it. If you don't know something exists, how can you know what it is made of........or anything else about it? Those are not facts you were stating, those were beliefs. Beliefs have no place in a conversation on logic. I have no belief in this particular matter one way or another, it was merely an easy example. The phenomena could be real.......and proven one day by gathering data, analyzing and scrutinizing it. .......or it could merely be there are many people with over active imaginations. The simple point is that there are no facts on the subject...........therefore it could not be discussed as logical or illogical. There are no facts to to support it........nor denounce it.



scientific method. We KNOW why the grass is green. We KNOW why the sun rises and sets. We KNOW many things.....as the data can be tested time and time again always rendering the same results, 100% of the time. These are called facts.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In a way this is very simple: We use symbols and sounds to represent ideas. These ideas are parts to a model (a concept that functions as close to real as possible). A model is not real, and "real" is not a model: it's like digital and analog, digital can never make a sign-wave as true as analog.

Thats something I think too. We are limited to symbols to represent the "real" world, like if we can´t understand it directly, but I think Plato already said something like that before. Is there another way of acquiring knowledge of this "real" world, directly I mean ? I know thats a difficult task, or impossible since to ask this question I already needed to make use of the limited "logic". But we must note that to classify this difficult, or even impossible, its is made with logic, and its limited. So, in some way its not so impossible.
Back to what you said about symbols and models, I think we can try to separate things this way(yup.. I know that I using logic to do this, so its limited) ; first, there is the real world as is it really is, which is undefinable, because it is beyond logic, it is the "nothingness" that you spoke of ; second, there is the world of models, ideas, and thoughts. For they to exist, its needed that we made use of logic to limit the "real" world so our brains could understand it, it is like to explain something complicated to a child, we need to simplify it, and therefore some knowledge about the subject we are explaining should be ignored in order to simplify it. So while we use logic we are doomed to be ignorant, and we always be incomplete without ever achieving our goal. That extends to everything... you know... everything is about learning; third, I would say thats the world of symbols, thats the symbols we use to represent the models that I told before, like the concept of the quantity "one", and the symbol "1", used to represent that concept, or the text I used to explain it.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Thats something I think too. We are limited to symbols to represent the "real" world, like if we can´t understand it directly, but I think Plato already said something like that before. Is there another way of acquiring knowledge of this "real" world, directly I mean ?... ...represent the models that I told before, like the concept of the quantity "one", and the symbol "1", used to represent that concept, or the text I used to explain it.

In the Lotus Sutra, the crowd that had gathered to hear the words of Buddha, begged him to tell then the true nature of the real world. Buddha was reluctant, cause no one would understand, but finally he gave in. The text at this point is missing. The next line is all of the people praising Buddha for his great wisdom. The missing text was not lost or hidden, this was written this way to illustrate a point. Logic can not explain the true nature of the real world. In order to understand the true nature of the real world, you must stop, listen, feel and let the inner voice talk to you. There is one thing I will tell you about the real world, we live in it. It touches us at all points, it moves through us and we through it. It can be understood.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
your last sentence, your edit completely negates the entire pararaph that preceeds it. If you don't know something exists, how can you know what it is made of........or anything else about it? Those are not facts you were stating, those were beliefs. Beliefs have no place in a conversation on logic. I have no belief in this particular matter one way or another, it was merely an easy example. The phenomena could be real.......and proven one day by gathering data, analyzing and scrutinizing it. .......or it could merely be there are many people with over active imaginations. The simple point is that there are no facts on the subject...........therefore it could not be discussed as logical or illogical. There are no facts to to support it........nor denounce it.



scientific method. We KNOW why the grass is green. We KNOW why the sun rises and sets. We KNOW many things.....as the data can be tested time and time again always rendering the same results, 100% of the time. These are called facts.

Yes, yes, yes. Discussing the existence of ghosts is quite illogical, because of the lacvk of information. A poorly constructed point, I must say.


You're missing my point. If you take the brain in the jar point of view, all the data you are collecting is manipulated by the person watching over the brains. So, the results that happen 100% of the time are artificially produced, and could not be called facts...even through sceintific method. Nevermind about it as I was just thinking that those who follow that line of thing can not possibly grasp logic.

oh brother.......