Luckily however when causality breaks down we fall into the world of statistical probabilities. Once causality breaks down, we cannot any longer hold onto the dear and treasured assurances of logic. It's statistically possible to run through a wall.Ĭausality breaks down when we look at things at the smallest level. It's statistically possible to fall up and into outer space. Quantum Mechanics, Chaos & Complexity theory. With the new sciences however, we have to redefine our version of logic, just as we do our version of reality.
It doesn't hold a basis in reality, only in our experiences/observations of reality. Logic is just a set of rules defined by humans. Even if you don't agree with him, it's very refreshing to read his arguments. By the way, Priest is one of a very few philosophers who actually believe that some version of paraconsistent logic must be true in the "real world". It should be noted, however, that paraconsistent logics are - as a matter of rule - less expressive than classical logic, i.e., fewer inferences can be made with them. Second edition, Oxford University Press, 2002. Graham Priest, Beyond the Limits of Thought, Cambridge University Press, 1995. You might want to have a look at so-called paraconsistent logics, in which the EFQ principle (along with some other basic logical rules) is removed, thus allowing a theory to contain certain contradictions without trivializing. Although, classically speaking, it should. Whatever the fundamental truth about consistency might be, there sure seems to be a good bit of contradiction going around. In classical/bivalent logic there is a principle known as ex falso quodlibet, which is gobledygook for, I take it, once you allow for one measly contradiction then, demonstrably, anything follows.
0 kommentar(er)
