Does Everything Have A Logical Explanation?

That's possible of course. I'm not a cosmologist although cosmology is of great interest to me. It's too early to tell but I suspect that once general relativity and quantum mechanics are successfully combined we will find that the universe didn't actually have a beginning at the big bang. Instead it could be that at the moment of 'creation' the universe tunneled to a lower energy state. The big bang singularity would thus not exist. This would make physical law applicable to the big time and any time before.

 

Ah, these all sound like such logical explanations. ^_^

For real, I like how you've all explained this. We do dismiss a lot, neoprene_queen - maybe out of pride. We all let our pride stand in the way sometimes of just even bothering to listen to an alternative explanation that isn't similar to our own.

 

more likely then not, the answer to the topic question is a simple yes. with one big caveat.
infinitely more is likely to exist then will ever be likely known by anything human,
or for that matter, any single knower of any sort or oregen.

nothing outside of science really acknowledges just how big a place the universe really is.
nor is existence limited to physical. only awareness and the ability to measure it is.

so logic isn't after all really a limitation, (upon existence), but it is a real thing, that there is no reliable way to avoid causing harm without.

ego to the contrary, knowledge is no limitation upon existence at all. so logic is a part of reality, but diversity is its ultimate nature.

and there could be completely non-physical parallel universes. there's nothing to stop there from being. logic does not in any way rule them out.

only that logically, there is no way of KNOWING if they exist or not. which doesn't rule out experiencing them.

experiencing only depends on existence (of both the thing experienced and the self), not knowledge.

and lack of knowledge isn't always a bad thing. well it better not be, considering the universe, just this one, let alone whatever others might exist.

its the avoidance of causing harm that's the moral issue though, and for that, knowing how something works is a part of it, and that's the part that takes logic.

i think there's a mistaken assumption here, that non-physical forces, should they happen to exist, somehow negates or neccesitates the negation of logic.

well there's really simply no requirement for logic to be negated to allow for the possibility of their existence.

 

a random number generator is not truly random, it is simply complex enough to create the illusion of chaos.
much of life is the same way. its not a question of having to be, logic is simply something that is integrally,
though with possible exceptions, almost always there.
this does not in any way preclude the existence of entirely non-physical sapient beings,
but it does suggest nothing being entirely dependent upon their doing so.

(again though, the whole point of logic, i mean in the sense of our being able to perceive it, other then understanding how things work,
for the general creative usefulness of doing so, is to enable the avoidance of causing harm)

 

I guess when I posted this thread, what I had in mind was ...something along the lines of Occam's Razor. Like, everything can be explained with logic and reason, and the simpler explanation is usually the correct one. So for example, if we are trying to explain or prove that the paranormal exists, Occam's Razor would suggest a lot of other possibilities that would seem more logical than assuming that what we heard in the attic was a ghost. Or what was rattling upstairs when we were downstairs, was a ghost. Many people make leaps to believing that they've seen Big Foot, UFO's, ghosts, etc...and really, there's most likely a better and more logical explanation. So, now that I've added that to the thread, does this change your opinions at all? lol

 

when you hear hoofbeats, thing horses first, but if it isn't horses, zebras do exist.

logic doesn't say things like big foot or ufo's can't exist.
the simplist explanation IS usually the most likely though.

but that doesn't make it logical
to fall into the trap of assuming or imagining the universal wonder of strangness can not or does not exist also.

where illogic come in is when a common enough belief about something that is not known,
is mistaken for knowledge, because it is commonly assumed to be.

beliefs generally fall into this catagory.

not because what we don't know can't exist,
but rather almost the complete opposite,

that what we don't know, owes nothing to what we want to think we do,
no matter how many of us, want to believe the same things.

 

I like your explanation. Are you talking about faith? Things of that nature?

 

Logic and reason are extremely beneficial and as far as I can tell, perhaps the most efficient ways for humans, given the biological apparatus we have, to navigate and understand the world. I think Occam's Razor is usually the best principle to rely on when encountering supposed paranormal, supernatural or other bizarre states of perception.

However, a lot of Quantum Mechanics suggests that the world is in fact not at all how we would perceive it and I don't think our standard notions of logic and reason are necessarily applicable at the subatomic world in understanding such phenomena, even though a lot of logic and reason are employed in being able to test such phenomena.

So while I'd contend Logic and Reason are essential in much of the development of humankind and our understanding of the world, these also may be abstractions relegated to a spectrum of the world at large (or small in the case of QM) where we reside and not necessarily something the entire cosmos is bound to.

 

Agree, but going with your point, I wonder if logic and reasoning are subjective? Not in all cases but many religious people for example really believe that they've come to their beliefs through logic and not just by faith. Idk.

 

Logic is not really subjective, 'reasoning' is probably a bit more-so. I suppose one could make a logical argument based on say a First-Cause argument and have their faith informed by that. But based on your prior examples, I suspect some religious people say they use "logic" as more of a buzzword.

 

well the only clear boundry between what is known and what is not know is that what is is and what isn't, could be.

so what i'm saying is if you go out in the woods and sit on a rock and stare at a tree,
the same things you don't know that are there, are there the same as if you read a book someone wrote thousands of years ago about what they wanted to think what they didn't know was like.

it just becomes more obvious, they wrote a book, they were making words.

reality is what begins beyond where the box of social construct ends.

people can choose to see only the illusions they are familiar with, but no matter how much they do this, there is a universe that their dong so has no effect on.
and in THAT universe, things we know nothing about, can live perfectly happily and mostly harmlessly.

it is not logic that is contradicted by the existence of the unknown, it is pretend knowledge that can easily contradict both, and belief, when it is made concrete with detailed dogma, well that is pretend knowledge.

there is no such thing as an authority on knowledge, there is the rock, there is the tree, and there is also, what we don't know, that is beyond them.

these are things that exist. it is the claims of authority that are an illusion.

people can enforce the idea of authority on each other as people, but no one can inflict that idea on anything that is beyond physical knowledge, and not even very well on anything that is beyond ourselves.

authority can violate logic, the whole idea of authority in some sense does, but this is only in our minds.
in the real universe, its own logic and integrity, cannot be violated by any sort of authority, not matter how well it can convince us of its dominance.

 

Fuzzy Logic Advances Artificial Intelligelligence !!


Every ordinary logical computation of a circle fails .

 

You bring up some great points. But, don't you think that scientists, religious people, political leaders, etc all feel like that they have ''authority'' over knowledge? (They try to convince others of this) This is likely why the mainstream media tries to control so much of what we believe. Social media, same thing. What are your thoughts on that?

 

i observe, many people in religion and politices seem to think or clam that they do. real scientists, though only human, go to great lengths and effort to avoid falling into this trap.
they may not always succeed in doing so, but it is part of their very souls and life, to very seriously make this effort. though again still human, and thus still diverse, even in this.

well social media, this a big mistake. you know, when the internet started, that wasn't what it was about. that isn't even what it was about when it started to be over run by 'business'.
http; hyper-text transfer protocol. that's what it stood for. engineering hobbyists and real engineers, used it to exchange what was to them directly and immediately useful information.

of course they started adding their favorite toys and things to play with. and sharing more then technical information.

well knowledge is knowledge. there is no authority over it. there is only honesty, or there is ignorance.
(there is the unknown too, the universal wonder of strangeness, but that doesn't really enter into it,
however much pretend knowledge about it may be a distraction from it)

there can be lots of gods, that's fine, and people can believe whatever,
but there's no greater authority on THAT rock then THAT rock,
no greater authority on THAT tree then THAT tree.

and you can extend that into beliefs about gods,
there's no greater authority on themselves then themselves,
and everything anything human claims to know,
no matter how much they may claim it to have come from some god,
by whatever path, came some how from or at least through,
some other human.

claims, sure, anyone can claim anything,
but reality is what begins beyond the disputation of claims,
beyond the whole box of social construct and social perception.

maybe we can never know it, if all our knowing is inside ourselves,
but that can never make it not be there,
no matter what anyone can do to us,
no matter what that can make us believe,
nothing can make that diversity that exists beyond ourselves go away or not be there.

that's what i love about the universe, the invulnerability of reality's diversity.

people try to demonize this as chaos, as if that were something bad,
but really, inconvenient, as it sometimes is, or more rarely even dangerous,
neither we, nor anything we think we know, would or could exist without it.

and again this doesn't exclude things we don't know,
its just that what people pretend to know about them,
isn't about them, its just about people.

and so to me, what is beyond people, beyond what people try to tell each other can pollute,
is much more interesting. more then everything people try to tell each other how to see.

 

People are not logical. Therefore many things are not logical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E48QqcTOXeY

 

WE may love the chaos .

And then Chaos presents itself artfully .

 

people can only destroy what their influence can reach. we can pretty much trash our own planet. and that will be the end of us when we do.
but the rest of the universe is still pretty safe from us. just this one planet in this one solar system, and we've only touched and seen a few others,
and those still only within it.

we can look beyond our own solar system, but it will likely be a long time before we figure out how to actually get to even the nearest neighboring ones.
and there are billions of others. its not like we're that big of a deal. except to us.

and to this world we were given, that is up to us, we could 'make' (let nature make) beautiful again, or destroy its ability to sustain us, utterly.

now if there are things like gods, one or more of which may have had anything do with giving it to us, and it wasn't just us it was given to,
but to every living thing on it, well i really don't expect our destroying it is something that would make them or it very happy.

if anyone thinks what i'm saying is against our imaginations leading us to create technologies and artifacts they're missing the point.
which is about using and choosing them responsibly, which is again, what would be logical to do so.

 

Do you think that chaos has a logical explanation? Considering that science tells us that the universe is random, it would at the same time seem like there is an order to this randomness, or ''chaos?'' Thus, all of the theories that try to explain the randomness.

 

Haven't read the other comments. But I would say no. Many of Isaac Newton's initial insights were not deducted by Logic. Carl Jung once said "The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense; not between right and wrong." This is why that Logic, while useful, is not the sole arbiter of Truth.

 

I get so irritated by the whole idea that there is a logical explanation for anything. What century is this? I honestly feel I live among cavemen to some extent.

I have had many experiences of course that few would be able to understand or believe. I have been to the horizon of alternate futures and am still toeing the water warily. I just have to slap myself on the forehead and shake my head sometimes.

The whole notion that anything has a logical explanation is itself ponderous. "If A, then B..." Well, yes, but this is just labeling things for convenience. It isn't an explanation of the totality of an occurrence whatsoever.

Humanity is really sad at the moment. Guns, war, violence, sex, money... Is this really it? Is this what our magnificent minds boil down to? This really is sacrilege. We are capable of so much more, so much more, you wouldn't even believe...but I have seen the light and must has.