Well, without some presumption of coherence, at least. If the aim of physics is to produce a coherent account of how physical things are, then it presupposes coherence, and hence logic.I don't know but can physics be undertaken without the logical axioms — Tom Storm
in your opinion do you think physics describes logic? — Shawn
Logic is just how to talk with some sort of consistency. — Banno
Logic is just how to talk with some sort of consistency. — Banno
Do you mean how does causality as imagined by physics relate to causality as imagined by logic? Do they share the same root or are they antithetic? — apokrisis
Deductive logic does not produce anything not in the assumptions. — Banno
I don't really have much to say myself at the moment. Just one question, regarding which, where do you think mathematics stands in relation to what you said? — Shawn
And there is the physical view that is essentially geometric – as spacetime rather matters – or the algebraic view where even geometry can apparently be reduced beyond spacetime ... but then that little tussle re-emerges again when we move up the next level of abstraction, as in topological order? — apokrisis
The quadrivium was the upper division of medieval educational provision in the liberal arts, which comprised arithmetic (number in the abstract), geometry (number in space), music (number in time), and astronomy (number in space and time). — Quadrivium | Wikipedia
one would study the Quadrivium: — Leontiskos
Many 19th-century logicians (for example, John S. Mill, George Boole, John Venn and William Stanley Jevons) took the range of logic to include deductive as well as inductive logic.
As appears from the classification, the remarkable novelty of Peirce’s logical critics is that it embraces three essentially distinct though not entirely unrelated types of inferences: deduction, induction, and abduction.
Initially, Peirce had conceived deductive logic as the logic of mathematics, and inductive and abductive logic as the logic of science. Later in his life, however, he saw these as three different stages of inquiry rather than different kinds of inference employed in different areas of scientific inquiry.
https://iep.utm.edu/peir-log/
No. Physics (provisionally) explains 'the regularities of nature' and logic (exactly) describes 'the entailments of regularities as such'. The latter is, imo so to speak, the syntax of the former (i.e. physics discursively presupposes logic). Why? Perhaps because ... nature, which includes – constitutes – h. sapiens' intelligence, is a dynamic process evolving within (thermal?) constraints from initial conditions – ur-regularities.[D]o you think physics describes logic? — Shawn
The point of an education is to lift us above the socio-cultural constraints of an oral world order – socially constructed in words – to a technocratic or rational world order. — apokrisis
So that suggests it all comes back to "number" — apokrisis
I would agree with all this. The point of an education is to lift us above the socio-cultural constraints of an oral world order – socially constructed in words – to a technocratic or rational world order. And that is socially constructed in numbers as signs that connect semantics and syntax into some pragmatic business of utterances and locutions. — apokrisis
So that would make the maths more clearly the handmaiden to the physics? — apokrisis
The Trivium pertains to communication, generally speaking. — Leontiskos
But that is the syntax, or the rules of argument construction and transmission. The geometry of relations to complement the algebra of the relatables. — apokrisis
As appears from the classification, the remarkable novelty of Peirce’s logical critics is that it embraces three essentially distinct though not entirely unrelated types of inferences: deduction, induction, and abduction.
I think the philologists would object if we were to reduce language to a social construction, — Leontiskos
So too for Aristotle and many Aristotelians, the division between deductive and inductive logic is not so clear-cut. — Leontiskos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.