|
 Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
 Logic and Logies and Onomies 
#15354961 - 11/11/11 09:39 AM (6 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
It has been said that Logic is the theory of natural theories (Frege).
However perhaps more rightly we can think that Logic the phenomenon of theories.
We can imagine that every 'ology' such as psychology, sociology, biology, and also other disciplines such as physics, chemistry, philosophy, are all collections of theories about some subject matter. Each level of theories other than physics is sometimes called a 'special science', and each one would become obsolete if it did not retain any theories which could not be explained by physics.
The ending 'onomy' as in Astronomy or Gastronomy occur because the term 'Astrology' or 'Gastrology' are taken. They are all (both onomies and logies) collections of theories and interpretations of these theories about some class of phenomenon.
Logic can be thought of as a phenomenon too.
Symbolic Logics and defined logics, such as:
.1 Syllogistic logic
.2 Propositional logic (sentential logic)
.3 Predicate logic
.4 Modal logic
.5 Informal reasoning
.6 Mathematical logic
.7 Philosophical logic
etc (above from wiki)
Are all logologies. They are collections of theories about logies. Often the word logic is used to refer to these logologies.
Logologies often apply to certain situations but not others, just like other theories apply to certain situations but not others.
The question is: can there be a logologology? logologologology? Or does it just end at logology?
You might personally think that logology is simply nonsense and this whole post is wrong.
Edited by Noteworthy (11/11/11 09:41 AM)
|
 Diploid
Cuban
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 14,220
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
 Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: Noteworthy]
#15354984 - 11/11/11 09:47 AM (6 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
That's an interesting "outside the box" kind of idea, but I see a problem with it.
As far as I can tell, there is an epistemological bottom, so to speak. A starting point for everything analyzable and that's First Order Logic.
It's like number systems. Think base-10 and you're working with the ten symbols we're all familiar with. You can simplify that and still convey the same information, but once you reach base-2, you can't go any lower because you would be unable to communicate information entropy. YES/NO is the minimum symbol set for communication. Any less, and you can't communicate.
You can argue that a single symbol, YES, could be used, but unless you also have a timing symbol, you couldn't know if someone was saying YES with YES and NOT-YES with the absence of YES because the absence of YES is indistinguishable from no communication. You MUST have at least YES/NO (or YES and a timing symbol to depict the absence of YES).
In a similar way, FOL is the ground state of epistemology. At least as far as my puny mind can tell. I'm open to the possibility that there are deeper things than I'm capable of conceiving. I just don't see how.
--------------------
Wanna hear something depressing? One out of four Shroomerites wants to lock me in a government cage for using a substance they don't like.
Hard to believe, right? Read it for yourself:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7874721#Post7874721
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: Diploid]
#15355076 - 11/11/11 10:08 AM (6 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
mmm I think that Is an important consideration but I am not sure how it is a 'problem', per se.
It seems as though this quantisation has become apparent through our study of logic, and has become part of our theories about theories.
This discussion right now seems to be a theory about theories about theories but a theory about theories is really just a theory. This means that these philosophical pursuits are the epitomy of self reflective thought - for they attempt to understand understanding, and thus understand the very understanding that is understanding the understanding of itself... all in the terms of what it is understanding.
But perhaps that is similar to how physical reality can 'use itself' to create models of itself by pointing itself against itself using the human aparatus.
Theories, when pointed at themselves, can create isomorphic subsets. Thus, being fractal in nature, interestingly enough.
That is... if it is possible at all to have a theory about theories. Maybe it isnt? Im not sure how the basic nature of binary is relevant to such a possibility though... If anything it seems to be evidence to the possibility of a theory about theories.
--------------------
 
Edited by Noteworthy (11/11/11 10:13 AM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 13,639
|
Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: Noteworthy]
#15358860 - 11/12/11 01:56 AM (6 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
logology is probably already taken
--------------------
~~~~~
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
|
logolol
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 13,639
|
Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: Noteworthy]
#15359141 - 11/12/11 05:57 AM (6 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
all the same
it is a good topic
--------------------
~~~~~
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
|
Thanks bro..  doesnt seem like this forum cares though
--------------------
|
Diploid
Cuban
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 14,220
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: Noteworthy]
#15359277 - 11/12/11 07:11 AM (6 months, 14 days ago) |
|
|
doesnt seem like this forum cares though
My lament too buddy. It often seems like anything that requires a bit of thought gets ignored. I have a number of ideas rolling around in my head that, to me, would make for great threads, but putting them into writing would take some effort because to get the ball rolling I'd need to make up a few diagrams and maybe even a short video to illustrate the base concept.
Then I think to myself that if I spend a day putting the OP together, it would get two replies if I'm lucky. So nevermind, it's not worth the effort. 
Still, I think this is the most interesting forum in Shroomery. 
--------------------
Wanna hear something depressing? One out of four Shroomerites wants to lock me in a government cage for using a substance they don't like.
Hard to believe, right? Read it for yourself:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7874721#Post7874721
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: Diploid]
#15359581 - 11/12/11 08:39 AM (6 months, 13 days ago) |
|
|
yeah I don't care much for mushroom growing forums since I dont grow mushrooms.. but the shroomery has a place in my heart due to the psychedelic forum
--------------------
|
Kickle
A Growing Hope
Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 11,340
Last seen: 13 hours, 43 minutes
|
Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: Noteworthy]
#15359620 - 11/12/11 08:49 AM (6 months, 13 days ago) |
|
|
The question is: can there be a logologology? logologologology? Or does it just end at logology?
I see no reason why not. But I'd only find it useful if it complicates the matter to such a degree that it becomes useless.
|
DisoRDeR
motional
Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 248
Loc: halcyon days
|
Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: Kickle]
#15359696 - 11/12/11 09:10 AM (6 months, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Thanks bro.. doesnt seem like this forum cares though
Damn, I think you just shamed me into un-lurking.
Quote:
We can imagine that every 'ology' such as psychology, sociology, biology, and also other disciplines such as physics, chemistry, philosophy, are all collections of theories about some subject matter. Each level of theories other than physics is sometimes called a 'special science', and each one would become obsolete if it did not retain any theories which could not be explained by physics.
Is this true? What actions within the realm of chemistry are not explainable with the underlying physics? (I'm not a chemist)... It seems to me that they are more convenient distinctions drawn along thresholds of emergent complexity and scales of interactions. There are disconnects where our understanding is incomplete, both between 'ologies' and within them.
It seems that any deeper logo...logy which is revealed (which I can't conceptualize, of course) would be integrated into the fundamental mass of first-order logic.
This makes me wonder to what extent first-order logic is dependent upon the structure of the human brain and our perception from within the passage of time (though I may just be revealing my own ignorance of the subject). Is this sub-logic the point of recursion within the cascade of -ologies?
i.e. philosophy-->mathematics-->physics-->chemistry-->biology-->neurology-->psychology-->logology-->philosophy-->mathematics-->etc
...Ok, this doesn't make much sense to me now, but in the interest of participation I'll post anyways.
...
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: DisoRDeR]
#15359974 - 11/12/11 10:26 AM (6 months, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Hey thats pretty profound man, because our concept of reality really is based on our mind, because all concepts and theories have their meaning in the mind. but our mind is based on physical reality, according to physicalists.
Looking at your list made me think, that philosophy is beyond theory. I remember now that Wittgenstein said this too. Rather, Philosophy considers the world and picks out those things which theories could be about, and analyses those theories. Physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, logology, maths, all these things can be said to be products of philosophical investigation.
So weve got theories (physics, maths, chemistry, biology, neurology, etc) and theories about theories (logologies) but if we were to have a theory about logologies it would simply be a logology. This is why the logology is 'special' and fractal. Philosophy is the questioning of theories and considering their place in life, and their relevance, their validity. Well, it seemed to be for socrates and thats good enough for me.
Validity can be tested for without the formal 'logical' validity tests we have now, for it is required in order to come about such a formal validity test in the first place.
--------------------
|
Freedom
Will swim for food
Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 4,476
Last seen: 11 hours, 36 minutes
|
Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: Noteworthy]
#15361093 - 11/12/11 02:47 PM (6 months, 13 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
The question is: can there be a logologology? logologologology? Or does it just end at logology?
why not?
another way you could say it is the study of the study of things. I think the only reason it seems unreasonable is that there are few people studying the study of things (logologists), and probably no one studying the study of studying. But if you wanted to you could.
--------------------
|
thelateking
Stranger
Registered: 02/14/12
Posts: 3
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
|
Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: Noteworthy]
#15808251 - 02/14/12 12:43 PM (3 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
(The question is: can there be a logologology? logologologology? Or does it just end at logology?
You might personally think that logology is simply nonsense and this whole post is wrong.)
I am seriously considering 'Logologology' as the title of a pseudo-scientific applied religious philosophy (using Scientology phraseology there). I intended to use it in a fake advertisement for a self-published literary and art magazine which has yet to be completed. It is fantastic that others are discussing the potential for this as a concept in itself. I feel that 'Logologologology' could only be possible if there was a valid 'Logologology' to theorise about, and seeing that 'Logology' is already a study of recreational linguistics I am only interested in the wonderfully tongue-twisting 'Logologology'.
As long as you can apply the study of studies of studies then you have Logologology. The reason I chose the term was I did not think there was any merit in this application and I wanted to show that if you believe that you can achieve something through prescribing to a theory then more than likely something will happen which will validate it - but this is the age-old power of positive thinking...or is it pure chance...or is it fate...?
Whatever it is I hope people will think first that they control their mind rather than letting others control it.
If you have any thoughts on where we could take Logologology (still fascinated by how easy that is to type) then let me know. Also if anyone would like to submit ideas or pieces of scientificophilosophical writing then lets talk.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 1,389
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: thelateking]
#15811917 - 02/15/12 01:42 AM (3 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
So weve got theories (physics, maths, chemistry, biology, neurology, etc) and theories about theories (logologies) but if we were to have a theory about logologies it would simply be a logology.
this makes the most sense to me. if you have a logology and you begin to study this logology that doesn't mean you have a logologology, it simply means you start back at square one as a logology.
--------------------
"The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic ideas (the characterological lie about reality) and looks life in the face, realizes that everything in it is problematic, and feels lost. And this is the simple truth - that to live is to feel lost - he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked." - Ernest Becker
|
 crkhd
☾☼☽
Registered: 12/28/08
Posts: 1,254
Loc: A human sphere enfolding ...
Last seen: 55 seconds
|
Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: blingbling]
#15824105 - 02/17/12 03:35 PM (3 months, 9 days ago) |
|
|
*Kurt Godel rolls in his grave*
--------------------
SHABOOM
|
Mr Person
Tralfamadorian
Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 91
Loc: Trapped near the inner ci...
|
Re: Logic and Logies and Onomies [Re: crkhd]
#15827278 - 02/18/12 09:52 AM (3 months, 8 days ago) |
|
|
I may not be smart enough for this thread, but wouldn't epistemology itself be this logology you are all referring to? I always thought of epistemology as logic analyzing itself as the basis of all knowledge.
--------------------
Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
