Logical thinking of Humans

KerimF · 2018-08-10 22:38:19

In theory in the least, humans are supposed to reason things based on a universal logical thinking.

Actually, I have noticed that also logic, as everything else in the universe, is relative to the observer (to the person in question).
But this doesn’t imply that the number of human logics is equal to the number of humans on earth

Let me start with a practical example:
On my side, I don’t mind accepting a notion about something which is not real if it (as a tool) helps me discover the world better.

So when I started learning geometry, I didn’t object using in my studies the unreal object called “the geometrical dot” which has no dimensions by definition. Also I accepted to work with straight lines while their two ends at infinity are out of reach in my real world. And thanks to the notion of the basic imaginary number (i or j) whose square is -1, many problems of real projects could be solved faster and easier.

On the other hand, I usually don’t believe an idea or story (made public) as being real and true just because some other people (even in billions) do. It has to pass my logical reasoning first in order to add it in my set of knowledge.

Do all humans (mature adults) on earth have a set of knowledge close to mine? I doubt though they are not less intelligent than I.

For instance, I, unlike most people, apply the "same" processes of logical reasoning in all my studies which could be related to my human living flesh (science), my human living soul (spirituality) and the real world (mainly its hidden truths); the world as it is on the ground, far from history, the great speeches and the news.

With time, my various studies have helped me understand better how and why humans have to be different; starting from their different main priorities in life that suit best the deep nature of which they are created.

Please notice that, after all I said, it is just me... and my logic

Kerim

Primenumbers · 2018-08-26 07:59:13

I thought the tool of logic was universal?

What are you saying then? You use the existence of things that don’t exist to prove things that do exist?

How does that work?

If A then B
No A
Therefore B

Wouldn’t your reasoning just be false then?

.........It’s very interesting.

KerimF · 2018-08-27 04:56:50

Primenumbers wrote:

I thought the tool of logic was universal?
What are you saying then? You use the existence of things that don’t exist to prove things that do exist?
How does that work?
If A then B
No A
Therefore B
Wouldn’t your reasoning just be false then?
.........It’s very interesting.

Sorry for not being clear about how using certain non-existent (abstract) objects could help know better some real things.

To simplify solving the equations of an electronic filter for example, I use complex numbers (real + imaginary) to model its real elements (resistors, capacitors... etc.). If the solution is right, all deduced results (giving the values of the real elements) will end up to be real numbers only (the imaginary numbers were just a temporary tool as the temporary wooden structure to build a concrete house).
Of course, one could solve such problems without using the notion of the imaginary number SQRT(-1), but the work would be somehow harder to do.

To me in the least, defining something not real doesn't imply - for sure - it cannot be useful in feeding better one's real knowledge in some respects.

But, concerning the above example, let us be rational. Millions (if not billions) of people around the world don't need including the concept of this imaginary SQRT(-1) in their logical reasoning.

I mean, if a "certain" concept (notion) of an unreal thing doesn't interest many rational intelligent people in the world, this doesn't mean it has to be so to all other rational intelligent humans

Sorry, I try my best not to go further since here is a math forum.

Primenumbers · 2018-08-27 08:34:08

Oh! So you use abstract concepts to solve problems but you’d get to the same answer if you did it the long way round. I see. I would still say logic is a universal tool though. Just because some other people use it differently doesn’t mean the actual tool is different. ???

KerimF · 2018-08-27 14:41:13

Based on the simple example I gave, you are totally right.

After all, it is not a crime if someone believes that his logic should be (or represents) the universal one to all humans
And a person is free to learn from some others what could be referred to as being a universal logic by which he will build and update his set of knowledge.

But, on my side, I won't be surprised anytime I meet a person who analyses things by a totally different logic of mine, if not opposing.
And the time I stop trusting my own logic more than of anyone else I would simply become a sheep among sheep

Math Is Fun Forum

#1 2018-08-10 22:38:19

Logical thinking of Humans

#2 2018-08-26 07:59:13

Re: Logical thinking of Humans

#3 2018-08-27 04:56:50

Re: Logical thinking of Humans

#4 2018-08-27 08:34:08

Re: Logical thinking of Humans

#5 2018-08-27 14:41:13

Re: Logical thinking of Humans

Board footer