Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00709)

Thoa (and Tom),

>Let's take A=Johnny trips over the curb, and
>B=Johnny falls
>
>Premise:  If Johnny trips over the curb, then Johnny falls
>Premise:  Johnny trips over the curb
>Conclusion:  Johnny falls
>
>But what if the conclusion is C=Johnny balances himself and does not fall?
>You have left out the C possibility, which could logically happen.

Yes, this can happen in the physical world, of course, but this just means
you began with a logical model which didn't fit the reality (reality,
meaning the experiencable universe. Leave aside the high-falutin' absolutist
stuff for now).

The physical situation obviously has more forkings or potential consequences
than the logical one. The logical pattern was kind of like an I shape, and
it sure doesn't fit the shape of a Y very well.

But that's easily fixed - you just design a logical model in the shape of a
Y or, if you want to get super-adventurous, like half a tree, to cover all
the crazy unlikely outcomes that could follow from that one innocent action.
The story-tellers amongst us could run riot with the outcomes of Johnny
tripping over the curb.

And that brings me to the idea that a logical proposition is a form, ie a
pattern of relationship between the things at each end, with the
characteristic of utter clarity and stability within its own scope, that is,
once the limits and assumptions have been put in place for it to live within. 

Furthermore, logic is such an interesting and useful tool to use because we
can use it to test our thinking, as well as make predictions about the
physical world - all as long as the pattern (which is determined
considerably by the constraints, ie assumptions and meanings of the terms)
is relevant or accurate enough for the purpose. And if it isn't, well we put
it aside and try to find a better pattern, or a better reality!

Murray