/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3955430]

If naturalists think that the world is illogical then they would not think it was worth studying because no one could understand it. They don't think that.

If naturalists think the world is logical, then they think it must follow all of the rules of logic, like Tarski's, to which the natural laws would be a subset of.

So, unless you're saying the majority of naturalists think the world is some kind of 3 option, they have to agree to one of those 2 choices. I would like to hear what you think this not-illogical not-logical 3rd choice is.

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3955488]

You again? Instead of running around this tree for the fourth time, please give me one of the following two citations.

1) Find a naturalist who says that science can create a perfect theory of the universe
2) Find a publication which lays out the formal syntax for naturalism

If you cannot accomplish this, you have no point, because your conception of naturalism is faulty.

[Anonymous No.3955524]

>>3955488
How about you answer the question, tough guy.

But, in good faith, I will answer you's:
>1) Find a naturalist who says that science can create a perfect theory of the universe
They all do, that's why they study the universe at all. They don't think it WILL, but they think it CAN because they think the universe is a logical orderly place that follows natural laws.

>2) Find a publication which lays out the formal syntax for naturalism
There is not one, and it's completely irreverent to the discussion. They don't need to HAVE one for a logical system to be subject to logical laws.

[Anonymous No.3955531]

>>3955430

the correct answer is Platonism. Now take your half-assed Thomism and go.

[Anonymous No.3955538]

The World is consistent and orderly, which is not synonymous with logical.

[Anonymous No.3955549]

>The World is consistent and orderly, which is not synonymous with logical.
So, tell me what this excluded middle 3rd option that the majority of naturalist subscribe to is called. I'd like to look it up.

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3955553]

>>3955524
Confirmed for strawman.

[Anonymous No.3955562]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29

Naturalism commonly refers to the philosophical viewpoint that the natural universe and its natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe that we know.[1] Followers of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws and that the goal of science is to discover and publish them systematically.

[Anonymous No.3955564]

>>3955562
So if these laws are not-logical and are not-illogical, what are they?

[Anonymous No.3955565]

People study illogical things all the time, your "argument" is too stupid to express.

[Anonymous No.3955572]

>>3955562

this is correct. Scientists believe this.
people that believe that there is a Supernatural realm that intervenes in the natural world are Magical Thinkers. While it is LOGICAL POSSIBLE they are right..... you cannot do science that way. And Magic has historically been proven to be unreliable, if not downright useless.

[Anonymous No.3955574]

>>3955565
No naturalist would call natural laws illogical.
Well, no naturalist that understands what the term 'illogical' means.

[Anonymous No.3955583]

>>3955572
Right, the natural laws are a subset of logical laws and its not an inclusive subset.

However, they still feel those laws are logical and therefor are subject to all of the normal rules of logic, in addition to a few extras science finds.

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3955584]

>>3955574
No logician would use Tarski's undefinability theorem this way. Well, no logician that understood its content, anyway.

[Anonymous No.3955595]

>>3955584
But a philosopher would. However, I'm neither.

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3955601]

>>3955595
Oh really? Can you find me a philosopher that uses this as an assault on naturalism? Great! Then we can get this thread rolling.

[Anonymous No.3955613]

>>3955601
So you cant stawman my arguments and attack his other beliefs instead?
Naaaa

You can just go after me instead, here and now.

[Anonymous No.3955618]

Define "logical" as it applies to worlds.

[Anonymous No.3955624]

>>3955613

Allow me to cut to the chase. Do you think that Deterministic and Predictable mean the same thing?

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3955636]

>>3955613
I am holding it as a remote possibility that you have a point, which, due to your unfamiliarity with the topics under discussion, you simply cannot express coherently. Then some backup would be an acceptable substitute, and interesting if defensible.

My position last night was clear enough. Naturalism is not a formal system. The universe is not a formal system.

[Anonymous No.3955638]

>>3955624
I understand that you could ad hoc assign the quality "Indeterminate" to a die roll it, get the result and travel back in time with that result without changing the qualities of the die. So you could know the outcome and still have it determinant.

But, personally, I think that's crap.

[Anonymous No.3955643]

>>3955638
not determinant

[Anonymous No.3955651]

>>3955618
I can't, but she did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether

[Anonymous No.3955666]

>>3955636
>Naturalism is not a formal system. The universe is not a formal system.

So, to reiterate my original unanswered question: Do you say naturalists think its logical, illogical or a 3rd unname option?

Keep in mind we are talking about naturalists, not whatever you are.

[Anonymous No.3955694]

What does it mean to say that "the world is logical"? Do you mean that the world is reducible to the laws of identity, noncontradiction and excluded middle? Reducible to first order logic? Second order? I've never heard anyone make any of those claims.

[Anonymous No.3955693]

>>3955666

I am a Naturalist.. So I will answer for me. The Laws of Logic are applicable in every POSSIBLE world. and no, God did not make them. Happy?

[Some Random Guy No.3955709]

>>3955693
Right, so you acknowledge that rules of logic, like Tarski's, would be applicable to nature.

>>3955694
Redactable to those rules in addition to other unnamed natural laws.
And, they do assume that. Unless you can find me someone that things something can be what it is not while simultaneously being what it is?

Can you give me an example of something in the universe that violates one of those 3 laws?

[Anonymous No.3955710]

>>3955666
>The universe is not a formal system

[Anonymous No.3955714]

liberty

[Some Random Guy No.3955716]

>>3955710
Instead of telling me what it is not, tell me what it is.

Or, more to the point, what Naturalists think it is. Since you're not answered the dilemma I can only assume you somehow think that they think it is both not-logical and understandable. So, you tell ME what that means.

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3955717]

>>3955666
> Do you say naturalists think its logical, illogical or a 3rd unname option?
I don't know how the adjectives "logical" and "illogical" are meant to modify the verb "to exist". That's a highly non-standard use, and I wouldn't want to tread into those waters without groundwork laid beforehand.

[Anonymous No.3955718]

>>3955709

'applicable'? The laws of logic are necessarily true---that's kind of what we MEAN by LOGIC.

[Anonymous No.3955720]

>>3955709
Adhering to a set of rules is not the same as being reducible to those rules. I can think of plenty different universes that would also follow those rules.

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3955721]

>>3955710
Oh? Can you give the syntax of the universe?

[Anonymous No.3955729]

>>3955721


'till i'm dead, hun

[Some Random Guy No.3955731]

>>3955717
Argue with:
>>3955718
for a bit. I have to do some work.

>>3955720
Which is why I said "and other unnamed natural laws."

[Anonymous No.3955733]

>>3955564
>not-illogical and not-logical

Where the fuck are you getting such bullshit from?

[Anonymous No.3955740]

>>3955733
From:
>>3953868

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3955741]

Some day, OP, Loeb's Theorem is going to blow your mind. But, baby steps, baby steps...

[Anonymous No.3955742]

>>3955430
The answer is choice 2. But is depends on what kinda logic you are using. Logic is a very broad field.

\thread

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3955749]

>>3955742
Please find a naturalist who supposes that existence is contingent upon our logical theories.

I'll wait.

[Some Random Guy No.3955750]

>>3955741
That's what we are talking about, and since Naturalism claims to be an all encompassing set it can't do exactly that.

Thank you.

[Some Random Guy No.3955754]

>>3955749
Done:
>>3955742

[Anonymous No.3955758]

>>3955430
>shit assumptions
>shit conclusions

Philosophy thread!

[Anonymous No.3955764]

>>3955750

No. 'Naturalism' does NOT make that claim. You are making a Category Mistake. Naturalism is the the PRESUPPOSITION that there is one set of physical law working at all times, everywhere.

[Some Random Guy No.3955797]

>>3955764
Even within the head of the Naturalist.
Even in the reason needed to conceive of Naturalism and check to see if it's right.

[Anonymous No.3955925]

>>3955797

How about we just assume Fairies do everything. Good luck explaining WHY.

[Anonymous No.3955936]

>>3955797

Other schemes for trying to 'science' were tried that involved supernatural agencies. Then Newton came along with 'I make no hypotheses'.

I recommend you stop doing Metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.3955958]

Option 3: The world is probabilistic such that study of it will give us partial information of it up to to some arbitrary limit that we would approach asymptotically.

[H+ No.3955975]

Here we go again.