Você está na página 1de 6

Limits of Logic Logic comes from the Greek word Logos meaning Pattern as it relates to study of patterns found

in reasoning. Though the modern history of logic dates it only to Greek philosophers like Pluto and Aristotle, the actual history belongs here in India. In Rig Veda, the date of which is unknown and is slated to be far earlier than 7000 BC (all the dates of Rig Veda given by not-so-scholars like Max Mueller have been proved wrong) there are very clear references to Logic, by means of chatuskoti, anuviksiki and tarka. Chatuskoti refers to what modern day logic calls as probability logic, anuviksiki as boolean a whole algebra has been created using anuviksiki- and tarka as informal logic. However, for our common understanding, let us keep referring to modern logic. It consists of 1. Informal logic - based on arguments and argumentative nature of a discussion mainly involving bringing out inconsistency and fallacies 2. Formal logic based on inferences by applying abstract rules. This and the abstract rules were developed by Aristotle 3. Symbolic logic based on using formal logic symbolically using references To put it simply, the 3 types of logic use inconsistency, inferences which is always based on past experiences and rules and symbols that are based on intuitive understandings. The modern science is developed using all the 3 fundamental logics. In scientific terms they are called as (though not as distinguishable as above): 1. Empirical observable by senses and measurable 2. Objective not interfered by different human biases or human behaviour or human consciousness (whatever it means here!!!) 3. Repeatable and Reproducible given the same circumstances it should do so exactly as before These are the fundamental principles governed in scientific research and may get expanded as below: - from wiki The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry. Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry). Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias. Falsifiability or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases. Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:

Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent. Co-variation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects. Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.

Of course, Science has advanced to such an extent using these fundamental factors of logic, that every minute of our existence is influenced by science at least remotely, without which I will not be able to write this article. Now, let us examine how science itself, particularly modern science, has defied the fundamental tenets of science: 1. Before Galilee Galileo , it was empirically -meaning by observation of the senses, - believed that all planets, moon and sun are circling around the earth. Even now, according to our senses- physical senses, it looks as if all planets circle the earth. He broke the myth of empirical observation of senses through other means of logic and other observations that all planets circle around the sun and not the earth. He is considered the Father of Astronomy. So, until Galileo it was Logical to think that all planets were circling around the earth. Now, it is no more logical. 2. Before Pythagoras it was believed that the earth was flat based on empirical physical senses observation. This logic was broken by Pythagoras and many others in the modern scientific scene. Now, it is no

more logical to say the Earth is Flat, even though there is a society called Flat Earth society that exists even today. 3. Before Newton, also with the premise of flat earth, it was believed that if we go to the end of the earth and jump, we will fall into the empty space. Newton postulated the gravitational theory and proved it mathematically and logically that we can not go out of the earth and fall into empty space. The falling into space is no more logical 4. With the arrival of Einstein, General theory of relativity, special theory of relativity, quantum physics, quantum mechanics and string theory many observed and logically concluded notions are no more facts and no more logical such as: Time flows like river and is running at same speed for everyone this is no more logical An object or a particle can not be present in 2 different places in space time relationship this is no more logical, as per the famous double-slit experiments. It is no more logical to say that a particle can not be seen at two places at the same time Space is an empty void and nothing has an effect on the space. This is no more logical, as it is proved that space is like a sheet and gets curved under a strong gravity Nothing can not create a particle. It is no more logical, it is proved through experiments that particle gets created out of void and again goes back to void. Gravity is a force. This is no more logical as it is proved that it is a manifestation of curved space - time, with this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the spacetime ie Gravity is nothing but constant accelaration

Treatment of gravitation

The concept of entanglement microscopic (quantum level) and macroscopic (supra atomic level) was illogical to Einstein himself, though it was proved of the possibility of entanglement with observable consciousness into scientific experiments was established by Shrodingers thought experiment called Schrodingers cat. Thus even braking the logic of Einstein

Schrdinger wrote:
One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts. It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

Another logic of point of object derived out of the quantum mechanic logic is getting modified by String Theory, which tries to prove that the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of extremely small scale (possibly Planck length, about 1035 m) which vibrate at specific resonant frequencies. Thus, any particle should be thought of as a tiny vibrating object, rather than as a point. This object can vibrate in different modes (just as a guitar string can produce different notes), with every mode appearing as a different particle (electron, photon etc.). Strings can split and combine, which would appear as particles emitting and absorbing other particles, presumably giving rise to the known interactions between particles.

All of the above rise to the fundamental question. Is yesterdays logic was wrong and todays logic is right? And at a given point of time in the future the logic of today will become wrong? The real answer to this question is: Logic has levels, at each level different sets of logic and rules apply. 1. What ever Newton and Pythagoras and Galileo said is true in that level even today it is logical. (here the level is the human senses observable

2. 3. 4. 5.

level, not sub atomic or quantum level nor at the mega level of planets and stars What ever pre Newton and Pythagoras people believed is true in that level of sense observation limited by intuitive thinking capability What ever Quantum mechanics says is true at the Micro level and can not be interpolated to our everyday observable sized objects at this ordinary speeds What ever Einstein said in General theory of relativity is very valid at the Macro level and does not have any sense-able relevance to day to day activities What ever logic that we will understand in the future, will be valid at that level of human comprehension.

Now, let us examine how many levels of human comprehensions are and how are they inter related: 1. Physical comprehension: All our understandings and knowledge and logic that we acquire through the physical senses of vision, hearing, touch-feel, speech, and taste are at the basic level. Let us call this Physical level. Most of the human beings have the full information of what this level gives, barring a few who are physically challenged to be politically correct!!. We know what it is like to touch an Ice cube and a rock. This knowledge can not be explained and it needs to be realized. We need to be in this physical level to know this information 2. Mental comprehension: All of our knowledge and information that we acquire through the subtle workings of the brain like mathematics, logic, and reasoning are at this level. Almost all the scientific advances are made possible due to the human capability at this level. Each human being has varying degree of knowledge acquired through this level. Even after 100 years of Relativity, 90% of the population of this world can not comprehend it. The knowledge of this level is possible even without the capability or limited capability of the physical comprehension. The standing example is Stephen Hawking. 3. Emotional comprehension: All of our knowledge that we acquire through emotions like love, compassion, beauty, pity, pride all comes from this level. Each human being has varying degrees and at varying directions of knowledge of this level. It is not necessary to have either physical comprehension or mental comprehension capability to be at this level. The beauty or irony, which ever way you look at it, is that each of these levels are independent of each other and they do not overlap with each other. From one level, we can not understand the other level. To elaborate: A physical level knowledge such as what it feels to touch a fire, can not be explained through mental level or emotional level it has to be experienced. Similarly a quadratic equation can not be made to understand through physical level or emotional level it has to be experienced in mental level only. Again the love of a

mother to her child can not be shown through physical or mental level it has to be experienced in emotional level. [However, there can be an argument that it is the Brain which has all these levels and the Brain is a physical object. This will lead to a different topic of Brain Vs Mind, and at last Consciousness which is out of scope of the current topic and it will be covered elsewhere] So, which ever way we look at Logic either through the scientific prism (point of view) or through human comprehension point of view, that it has limits as defined from which level we look at. The same logic of one level does not apply to the next level and vice versa. So Logic has limitations. End of Logic. After thought: As an extension of the levels of human comprehension, can we have many more levels? Based on our understanding, that there can be many more levels other than the three mentioned. It sounds logical, isnt it? Spiritual Level? So if there is a Spiritual Level, obviously (logically) we can not comprehend from the 3 levels that we are mostly present. We need to go to the Spiritual level and experience it to understand. Hence Spiritual issues can not be analysed Logically or scientifically it can only be experienced. By S L Sriram

Você também pode gostar