It may seem bizarre to consider a reality that can only be modeled using theories constructed in paraconsisent logic. But are there reasons to believe that this is the case? Well, we haven't found any "scientific evidence" yet, and we never will. Modern science assumes that reality is consistent. If we find a contradiction, we throw out the theory.
But there are two bodies of theory which are troubling for science: general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both of these bodies of theory seem true. But there are domains in which both make predictions and they contradict each other. So of course science goes on, and scientists continue to look for a new theory that unifies the two.
But it's also possible that both theories are essentially correct, and simply need to be reconstructed in a paraconsistent logic. It's troubling, of course, to think that both theories are actually true, but it is one option, and that is one reason we might consider reconstructing science in a paraconsistent logic
Dear Daniel,
I Think that there are good reasons to believe that the universe obeys paraconsistent laws, not consistent ones. Why is this so? As I see it, consistent laws make us think of a unchanged and fixed universe. As this seems not the be the case, it is likely that the universe obeys inconsistent laws. But, a you it's also possible that both theories are essentially correct, and simply need to be reconstructed in a paraconsistent logic.
KInd regards,
Orlando
Paraconsistent logic merely adds an additional truth value (or additional truth values). So one might have T, F, and T/F. So instead of regarding contradictions as simply false, we have the further option of regarding them as simultaneously true and false. This might be a useful way of handling contradictions resulting from self-reference (e.g. "This sentence is false"). It might also be useful in making systems of propositions that serve an explanatory role tractable despite such systems being inconsistent (e.g. the preface paradox, or the example given in the question). But these are applications involving issues of language and epistemology. I wouldn't conclude that this shows that the universe itself obeys paraconsistent laws (i.e. I wouldn't conflate ontology and epistemology, or our historically contingent representations with the preexisting reality they seek to represent). The universe, to echo Bishop Joseph Butler, just is what it is and not what it isn't.
You are not asking a question, but begging the question: could you please explain to the uninitiated, such as myself, how theories constructed in 'paraconsistent' logic actually 'model' a reality?
Of course, what exists cannot be self-contradictory; this is why you do not encounter two-sided triangles, four-legged bipeds, or completely spherical cubes. However, our attempts at intellectualising aspects of reality which we only dimly understand can conflict with each other conceptually to the extent that they are still inadequate representations.
Hello Russell Smith. I am asking a question, but I also provide various commentary and sources for consideration. You say that you are uninitiated. I have finally completed a more accessible article than the one that I have published here: https://medium.com/@dgoldman0/ramblings-on-a-paraconsistent-reality-70a6c225e01f?source=friends_link&sk=fc72f3fa2f931b663e75c66837f895ab
But if you want to review the more scholarly article, here you go: Preprint Paraconsistent Probability and Scientific Inquiry
Hi Daniel, I'm 'uninitiated' into the cult of inconsistency, not uneducated about it (my famililarity dates back to a meeting with Graham Priest in 2002 at Leeds University.)
I have a half-finished draft paper for journal publication on my desk on the construction of Copenhagen quantum consistency which will also clarify the confusion surrounding Priests's conception of empirical contradiction underpinning his belief in the 'pararationaiity' of 'paraconsistency'. When finished, I'll be looking to put it up as a Preprint on RG to garner feedback from scholars in the relevant fields. Best RS
Russell Smith, it is beyond silly to use the phrase "cult of inconsistency" for a variety of reasons. But you seem to think that the universe must be describable by a consistent axiomatic framework. Why?
you don't? Do you think you will ever dig up an object which is purely a sphere and purely a cube at the same time? Such an object cannot exist because its not self-consistent.
I don't know. But you seem extremely confident that reality can be fully described by a consistent logical framework. Why?
The only alternative (and not a good one) to 'logical' is 'illogical'.
Logos: word, discourse; divine speech; reason (dianoia), discursive reasoning; noetic apprehension of the first indemonstrable and sacred principles, archetypes, or gods; analogy, proportion, measure.
"Logos is not a separate hupostasis, but determines the relation of any hupostasis to its source and its products, serving as the formative principle from which the lower realities evolve." --Algis Uždavinys (The Golden Chain)
Martin Klvana, "not consistent" doesn't necessarily mean "not logical." There are logics which relax requirements for consistency. They're called "paraconsistent logics." They're not illogical. They're just not using the standard logic that we've developed. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
The only alternative to 'consistent' is 'inconsistent'. And what is 'inconsistent' is self- contradictory, and what is self-contradictory is absurd.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning