In Logic We Trust?

How far can we trust logic? It’s held up by many a philosopher as the ultimate tool to discern the nature of the universe, but I’m starting to have my doubts about how far we can take this belief. We base the logical model that we use on the visible universe around us and thereby assume that the rest of the universe must operate in a similar way.

For example, logic is built on the premise that B leads to C. This is, in many ways, one of the big problems we currently have in a lot of our reasoning. We say ‘Since B leads to C and B must have something that led to it, let’s say A, then what came before A? And, while we’re at it, what came before that which came before A, ad infinitum?’

This is a paradox. If there was always something that moved what we’re looking at, then time is infinite, but time can’t be infinite (or so we think) because then we would never arrive at the point in time that we’re at right now (as that would take infinitely long).

This, in many people’s books, is one of the strongest arguments for God. After all, since everything needs to be pushed by something, then something must be the Prime Mover and we should call that God. Of course, that is just as paradoxical, as the next necessary question then becomes ‘well, who moved God?’

Obviously, the moment we descend into these kinds of paradoxes something has gone wrong. Now there are two things that can have gone wrong, either the universe is wrong, or our model for predicting how the universe works is wrong. Now I’m willing to put my neck out on this one and say that it is our model and not the universe that has it wrong.

Simply put, I believe our model is three dimensional in a four dimensional world, (or is that four dimensional in a 13 dimensional world?). The entire model is based on direct experience from the world around us, which for the longest time we thought was the truth. Now, however, we have to come to grips with the realisation that it is only a very small part of the truth and that we haven’t taken the rest of reality into account.

For example, on the subatomic scale, many of the laws of logic as we understand them fall apart. Such basic premises as ‘a thing exists in one place only’ (essential for such arguments as ‘he can’t have done it, as he was with me the whole time’) and ‘every action as an equal but opposite reaction’ (essential for such arguments as ‘So you’re saying he shot the bullet that killed him?’) don’t hold true anymore. Subatomic particles can exist in multiple places, in fact they can exist in an infinite number of places simultaneously (while still being one particle). Some of them can also jump, for no apparent reason, from one place to another without passing through the intervening space between.

There is even talk of particles being able to influence things in the past. Let me say that again, because it’s pretty big: a particle from this moment in time might be able to influence particles from a few moments ago. If that’s true, that turns B to C on its head. Hell, even if these jumps were microscopic, as long as there were enough of them in a straight line back through time, it might mean that the original event that causes the Big Bang, for instance, hasn’t even happened yet.

Obviously, our current logical model has not yet figured out how to take these things into account and, for a large part, tries its best to ignore them. That’s understandable, as otherwise it’s very possible that the entire logical model falls apart and then where will we be?

Well, for one thing we might no longer be enslaved to a model that isn’t, in fact, half as accurate as we’re led to believe.