Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) double-posted this 50 minutes ago, 5 minutes later[^][v]#1,460,109
Maybe I should make a thread for questions like this. Questions that seem simple at face value like "why does space have three dimensions?" Or "why does time only go in one direction when all the other three dimensions let you go either way?"
Or why is space Euclidean in the absence of a gravitational field? Why is the universe flat?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) quadruple-posted this 42 minutes ago, 6 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,460,111
Or how come there’s matter in the universe? How come when the universe formed there wasn’t an equal amount of matter and anti matter that annihilated leaving nothing but photons behind?
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc (OP) replied with this 26 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,460,113
@previous (boof)
I’m not sure I agree with that. Logic is an abstraction, logic doesn’t physically exist. If things must obey logic, then if there’s nothing, there’s nothing to disobey logic, so I’m not sure that’s really impossible.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 16 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,460,117
@previous (C)
Saying something is an abstraction isn’t the same thing as saying I believe in or don’t believe in it. English is an abstraction, but you wouldn’t say I don’t believe in words. Everything you’re reading right now is just pixels that are darker surrounded by pixels that are lighter. Any meaning you attach to the patterns you’re seeing is an abstraction. Saying logic is abstract doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means it’s not physical. You can’t hold logic in your hand. It’s intangible.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 14 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,460,118
If you think about it, there’s nothing in nature that forces it to be the case that the letters in the alphabet are associated with the sounds we associate them with, you could create any arbitrary mapping with any arbitrary set of symbols. And we know that’s true because different languages exist. The same thing is true for logic, there’s more than one possible way to represent logic, because logic really if you think about it is a type of math. And the way we represent math is an abstraction.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 12 minutes ago, 48 seconds later, 43 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,460,120
And different abstractions have different pros and cons. Just because we use one abstraction doesn’t make it the best abstraction. For example, when we do math, we need an order of operations, and we need parentheses to know what order we should do things in. But that’s due to the grammar of our system of math where we have a number an operation and then a number. But if you put the operation at the end so 5 5 + instead of 5 + 5, you don’t need an order of operations and you don’t need parenthesis. I would imagine human languages have similar things, English is SVO but not every language is. Logic is just one way you can describe reality but it’s not the only or the most complete way. I’d argue set theory is more fundamental than logic.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 8 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,460,122
@1,460,120 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
Set theory and logic coincidentally are analogous to each other, but set theory is also analogous to probability.