The Laws of Logic

[cholland]

The 'Laws of Thought' are a conceptual tool made by man. .. they have no actual reality outside of the mind of man.

Are the Laws of Logic man-made?

[AquinasD]

Well, axioms can be postulated willy-nilly. However, it remains the case that we can, to an extent, predicate the rules that govern our axiom-postulating. You can't have axioms all the way down, since this takes away meaning from any axiom at any level. Therefore, there are some immutable laws of logic which cannot be denied on pain of absurdity. They are an essential part of what it is to be a mind.

[Goat]

The 'laws of logic' are descriptive.. They are conceptual, and therefore they are man made. Those who insist they are not are commit several logical fallacies. The first is the logical fallacy of equivocation by equating the 'laws with logic' with the facts of reality. That is sort of mixing up a map with the territory. Then there is the logical fallacy of reification, where the facts of reality are being treated as if they were independent entities. The 'laws of logic' do not govern reality, but rather describe how reality appears to work. The 'laws of logic' describe reality..it is merely a describe conceptual tool though.

[He-zen]

Well, are they "man"-made? In a sense, they would be, since without discursive thinking there can be concepts at all, and as such there could be no concept of "true" and "false". As such, without having entities who are able to conceptualize, these "laws" would not exist. Now these thinking entities do not necessarily have to be "humans". (Yes, I am nitpicking, just for the fun of it).

The more important question is: "could these laws be formulated in a different fashion"? Could we create a different set of laws instead the ones stipulated? The answer is negative: we could not. Unlike a generic axiomatic system (for example: chess) where the axioms can be literally anything - as long as they are coherent - meaning: internally consistent we could not substitute the law of identity without anything else, since if "A != A", then literally we could not know what anyone is talking about. We could not deny the law of non-contradiction for the very same reason.

So, yes, in a sense the laws of logic are "made" (they do not exist as ontological entities), but they can be "made" in one way only.

[McCulloch]

Many mathematicians and logicians believe that these laws are discovered not invented. They are true regardless of whether we believe them or not.

[He-zen]

Many mathematicians and logicians believe that these laws are discovered not invented. They are true regardless of whether we believe them or not.

Yes, many do. They contend that there are "abstract objects", which have independent existence and which are discovered and not created. If one only thinks about numbers, it almost seems to be rational, at least for a short while.

The problem is that they confuse the concept of 'one' with the property of 'one'. Obviously the property of "one" exists whether there is someone recognizes this fact or not. But that is not the same as the concept of "one".

These so-called abstract objects are not limited to logical and mathematical concepts. Rather there is the concept of "before" (time-wise)), "in front of", "adjacent to", behind, etc... which presuppose an observer. Moreover, the abstract objects would also contain other abstractions, like pieces of "art". Those philosophers contend that the Ninth Symphony was "discovered" by Beethoven, not created by him. Also that Shakespeare did not "create" Hamlet, he simply discovered it. And that shows the utter irrationality of "abstract objects".

If someone would make a mistake while performing the "Ninth" what happened? Did he simply discover a brand new abstract object? If several people translate Poe's "Raven" into a different language, and they use different words and linguistical structures, do they create something new, or do they "discover" brand new abstract objects?

I think that the mind-independent abstract objects are sheer nonsense.

[orthodox skeptic]

How about this for deep thinking. "The laws of thought are concepts created by man to allow him to attain reality outside the mind of man?'" Exactly what that means I can't explain... but couldn't I fool you into thinking it sounds like something that would come out of the mouth of Socrates...more likely Freddie Burgess who was notorious for inventing 'old sayings' for us guys on the corner!

The 'Laws of Thought' are a conceptual tool made by man. .. they have no actual reality outside of the mind of man.

Are the Laws of Logic man-made?

[Haven]

As others have said, the laws of logic are simply statements that describe the way things behave within the universe. They aren't some ethereal force "out there," but they, like numbers, sets, and other mathematical concepts, are descriptive statements.

[Furrowed Brow]

The 'Laws of Thought' are a conceptual tool made by man. .. they have no actual reality outside of the mind of man.

Are the Laws of Logic man-made?

Wrong kind of question I think and depends what folk have in mind when they think of a law. If they are thinking the laws of logic are like the law of the land then the answer is no because the laws of logic are not like that kind of law. The laws of logic are more like the rules for making a real great nine iron shot, or a great putt, or singing in tune. Things we can do well or less well. In this sense what counts as a good example or a poor example of thinking is manmade.

The more important question is: "could these laws be formulated in a different fashion"? Could we create a different set of laws instead the ones stipulated? The answer is negative: we could not.

The answer is yes they can be formulated in differenrt fashion, and there are many different kinds of logic that serve different purposes. Some logics look nothing like each other. There are the classic logics e.g. Boolean and predicate logic and then there are many value and, fuzzy logics, modal logics (dozens of them), temporal logics, doxastic logics, deontic logics, quantum logics, intuitionistic logics, paraconsistent logics, paracomplete logics and so on. The answer is they are all different tools that serve different purposes.

But let's say there are some rules like the law of identity that really are basic to all logics. Some folk might be skilled at using these rules and other much less so. A baby for example, or someone with brain damage, or someone with dementia, or someone we might say is mentally ill. We could say some folks thinking is inconsistent or incoherent as measured against a skilled thinkers use of the law of identity or the law of non contradiction, but that is to presume that these laws are the measure of what counts as thinking. Sure they look the most consistent way to think given theworld we live in. But we demand consistency in much the way we recognise a sweet golf swing, you know what it feels like when you manage it. Yet all those folk hacking their way around the golf course are still doing something and only look like hackers compared to the pro. So what if the rules required the player dig great diverts of turf out of the fairway. That changes the game, and changes what we think a great shot looks like. What counts as consistent also depends on context.

What is manmade is the demand that we be consistent and the demand that consistency looks and feels a certain way.

So let's imagine a world in which the law of identity is not applicable a world where we cannot say "P implies P". In that world given today is Thursday this does not imply today is Thursday, or given that FB wrote this post this does not imply FB wrote this post. Surely a crazy mixed up world that would be, but there is no logical reason it is impossible. A consistent logic as as we might define consistency will show that world to be inconsistent but then dreams have that kind of crazy inconsistency, and dreams are possible.

The point to this ramble is that the "laws of logic" are not universal, and each kind of possible world be that world coherent and consistent or dream like, each world has its own nature. What we judge as consistent is just one subset of possibilities. Whilst the way we do think is not manmade, the sense that one particular kind of consistency is what really counts as "logic" is limited by man's imagination, an imagination that says only certain ways of thinking are what really count and stuff that looks different is "incoherent" and somehow wrong. Thus we often say dreams are illogical. But if we lived in a "dream world" where things morphed into other things, clocks melted over surfaces, and events blended together, and you are both you and someone else, then in that world the stuff we tend to count as logic is no good.

[He-zen]

The more important question is: "could these laws be formulated in a different fashion"? Could we create a different set of laws instead the ones stipulated? The answer is negative: we could not.

The answer is yes they can be formulated in differenrt fashion, and there are many different kinds of logic that serve different purposes. Some logics look nothing like each other. There are the classic logics e.g. Boolean and predicate logic and then there are many value and, fuzzy logics, modal logics (dozens of them), temporal logics, doxastic logics, deontic logics, quantum logics, intuitionistic logics, paraconsistent logics, paracomplete logics and so on. The answer is they are all different tools that serve different purposes.

You forgot: "military logic"... Nope, we are talking about the 3 axioms of classical logic, and not some offsprings, which may or may not be fundamentally different.

But let's say there are some rules like the law of identity that really are basic to all logics. Some folk might be skilled at using these rules and other much less so. A baby for example, or someone with brain damage, or someone with dementia, or someone we might say is mentally ill.

Irrelevant. We are NOT talking about the proper usage of these axioms, we are talking about the question: "are these really the only valid set of axioms"?

So let's imagine a world in which the law of identity is not applicable a world where we cannot say "P implies P". In that world given today is Thursday this does not imply today is Thursday, or given that FB wrote this post this does not imply FB wrote this post. Surely a crazy mixed up world that would be, but there is no logical reason it is impossible.

Again, you are mistaken. In your hypothesized world Thursday is not the 5th day of the week... so what is it? It cannot be answered, because there is no law of identity. If sometimes A=A but some other times A=B and yet other times A=C... then you cannot have a concept of what A happens to be. Nothing is what it "seemes to be"? That is a logically incoherent (and thus logically sel-contradictory) state of affairs.

But if we lived in a "dream world" where things morphed into other things, clocks melted over surfaces, and events blended together, and you are both you and someone else, then in that world the stuff we tend to count as logic is no good.

In world where the state of affairs of "A=A" does not exist, where nothing has identity, there can be no beings, who are able to conceptualize anything, since they are not "themselves". Maybe for a second they are humans, but then in the next one they magically (like in a dream) transform into a fish, and then they become a grain of sand... Just like in a dream (random firings of the neurons) there is "nothing", if such a world you proposed would be reality (and the dream is not a reality, no matter how life-like it seems to be) there would be "nothing" there that could be grasped... where would be no one there who could do the "grasping".