If gravity worked on an inverse cube law, etc, then we enter the realm of non-logic because it doesn't.
I don't think we would enter any sort of "realm of non-logic". You can apply logic to hypothetical, or even impossible situations. The logic itself stays the same even if the conclusions you come up with are very different.
There is no externality. Not without the realm of the four forces of the apocalypse and their rider anyway. The rider being consciousness.
Do you believe that there is no reality outside conscious perception of it?
Constructing an alternative reality "If gravity went backwards and light went faster and the Planck length physlink.com was shorter" is playing with words, not logic.
It's not logic itself, but logic would still apply if those hypthetical alternatives where true. My point was that logic doesn't depend on the speed of light or the nature of gravity or the Plank length.
Reality is the arbiter of logic, not a nice turn of phrase and an apparently logical train of thought, even if we all agree with it like a bunch of lemmings.
If we all agreed about a specific fact, and that "fact" was actually false, it doesn't mean that logic couldn't be appliedto that fact, merely that logic correctly applied might not result ina true conclusion.
"All dogs are blue
All things that are blue are cats
Therefore all dogs are cats"
Is a perfectly logical argument. Its conclusion is false, which is not a urprise because both of its premises are false but it is not illogical despite being false. Any logical argument has to start from something. If the something it starts with is false its not specificly a problem with the logic.
tim |
