3 ms·
I am not sure how to even respond to this coherently... alas - I try. Do you think "logical implication" (whatever that is) is not bound by temporal order? Th
by ukj 6y ago
I am not sure how to even respond to this coherently... alas - I try.
Do you think "logical implication" (whatever that is) is not bound by temporal order?
That simply tells me that whatever you think "logic" is - it doesn't concern itself with time or downward causation. e.g your idea of "logic" is not Linear/Temporal logic.
So it can't be the logic of this universe then? Perhaps you've heard the saying "One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens"?
- tsimionescu 6y agoYes, a is implied by b is equivalent to me to b implies a, and it is an atemporal relationship. This is how a lot of logic is taught and practiced, whether in mathematics, physics, engineering or programming. I am a programmer by trade, and even in programming most uses of logic have no concept of time. When I say x + 1 = 7, therefore x = 6, I see the two statements as being true simultaneously, and simultaneously with the implication. I am sure there exist logics where time is a necessary component of reasoning, and I am not downplaying their importance. But there also exist logics where time plays no part, and they are not more or less true.
- ukj 6y agoThe crux of the matter is information. Symmetrical (equational) theories contain none. Information mandates asymmetry.