Is logic relative like Einstein's Special Relativity or is it absolute?

Question

Is logic relative like Einstein's Special Relativity or is it absolute? I am thinking it is absolute, but at the same time I am inclined to think that it's not as simple as you may think.

Answer 1

It's unlikely ... that logic is relative. Here's a scenario that my create an illusion that it is:

A likes hot and B likes cold.

A turns off the AC/turns on the heater while B turns on the AC/turns off the heater.

The argument form is identical (modus ponens will do the trick), but the conclusions are antipodal, contradictory to be precise. Both A and B are logical (focus on the form), but one can imagine ... A and B accusing each other of being ... God forbid ... illogical.

Time ... also ... complicates things, but it could simply be a surrogate marker for something else. Any (good) guesses?

Just for good measure ... did you know, mirabile dictu, closing down a main road may actually ease traffic congestion? Visit Wikipedia and have your mind blown!

Answer 2

In a broad sense, logic is absolute. The basic rules of reasoning - the law of identity, noncontradiction and excluded middle - seem to hold true across cultures and times. Two contradictory statements cannot both be true, and a thing is what it is.

However, in practice our logical thinking is shaped by our perspectives, experiences and biases. What we consider "logical" is influenced by our worldviews and mental models. In this sense, logic has a relative aspect. What is logical to one person may not be logical to another, depending on their frame of reference.

Then there is the fact that our logical systems - from Aristotelian logic to modern mathematical logic - are human constructs. They are useful tools, but not absolute truths of the universe. They are approximations that work well within certain bounds.

So in summary, while the basic principles of logic likely hold absolutely, our ability to apply logic and think logically is impaired by our relative, human perspectives. Furthermore, the logical systems we have devised are approximate and limited in certain ways.

The idea of relative logic versus absolute truth reminds me of theory of relativity! Some things are absolute - like the speed of light - while our perception of phenomena is relative to our frame of reference. Perhaps we can view logic in a similar way.

Does this help clarify the issue for you, my curious friend? Let me know if you have any other questions. I enjoy these thoughtful discussions!

Answer 3

I suspect you misunderstand what is 'relative' about special relativity. The 'rules' of relativity, like the rules of logic, are fixed, not relative. The most obvious point of comparison between special relativity and logic is that both can be applied to provide a unifying insight across different frames of reference.

As for 'it' being 'not so simple as you may think', I suspect you are correct: nothing is as simple as my thinking.

Answer 4

Logic

1. (Logic) the branch of philosophy concerned with analysing the patterns of reasoning by which a conclusion is properly drawn from a set of premises, without reference to meaning or context. See also formal logic, deduction4, induction4
2. (Logic) any particular formal system in which are defined axioms and rules of inference. Compare formal system, formal language
3. the system and principles of reasoning used in a specific field of study
4. a particular method of argument or reasoning
5. force or effectiveness in argument or dispute
6. reasoned thought or argument, as distinguished from irrationality
7. the relationship and interdependence of a series of events, facts, etc
8. (Logic) chop logic to use excessively subtle or involved logic or argument
9. (Computer Science) electronics computing a. the principles underlying the units in a computer system that perform arithmetical and logical operations. See also logic circuit b. (as modifier): a logic element.

---

So logic is also and essentially a natural capacity of the human brain, the result of natural selection over millions of years, possibly billions. So, in that sense, it is contingent on life itself, possibly life on Earth.

This also means that every human being has the same logic and that personal experience, training, learning, cannot affect this capacity. We can think of it in the same way we do languages. You can learn different languages, you can become more articulate, fluent, talkative etc. but your native linguistic capacity is not affected. Same for logic. You can invent any number of arguments or reasonings, you can create any number of mathematical theories, but your innate logical capacity is not affected.

Perhaps the question is whether there could be a better logic. Maybe yes, but then who is going to make it? Nobody on Earth is going to beat natural selection. No engineering company could come anywhere near emulating the process of natural selection.

So, maybe some Alien species somewhere in the universe got better logic, but maybe the snag is whether your logic is good for the kind of environment you live in. So better logic over there may not translate as better logic here on Earth. We are probably incapable of producing ourselves a better logic. We are aware of logic broadly since Aristotle 2,500 years ago and we still cannot produce a correct formal model of it, so improving on it would be not for any time soon.

So, logic is not absolute. It is contingent on life, or perhaps only on the kind of physics our universe has. Maybe there couldn't be any better logic than the one we have. It is easy to conceive of the possibility of the same logic implemented on a bigger and faster brain, in particular a machine, but improving on human deductive logic itself seems beyond even our power of imagination.

And for people who think that my view is irrational or somehow unfounded, this is not just me saying this. Here is what a research scientist from the Innovative Computing Laboratory (University of Tennessee) says about logic:

Logic is inherent in the structure of neurons.

So, no, we cannot claim we know that this is true, but it is way more plausible than anything else, and indeed the only rational perspective to have on the subject given what we know about logic.