One vote per day, please
Is the universe logical
My argument is that logical deduction actually gave rise to the nature of the physical world. And the distinction between true and false will actually be demonstrated by physical reality.
But some believe that logic is only a human contrivance to better understand the world around them and that logical deduction does not describe a physically real phenomena. They point out that true and false are applicable to more than descriptions of physical facts. For instance, the truth of the statement, "Unicorns are horses with one big horn", can be understood as true even though it does not describe anything real. Or, we can recognize that 1 + 2 = 3 is true even though it does not necessarily describe anything that exists. They say that since true and false applies to things that are not real, then reality cannot be based on the distinction between true and false.
However, the fact that we can recognize the truth or falsehood of statements that do not have any relation to reality does not prove that true and false cannot be used to describe the nature of reality. All that is required for a system to be describe by logic is that the characteristic attributed to a proposition must exclusively have only one of two possible states. For example, in digital logic circuits there are transistors that are either on or off. And the on or off state of one transistor may determine the on and off state of other transistors. Since each transistor must be in one or the other state, not neither state, not both states at the same time, it can be represented by logic. And in fact, the same logic used for propositions which are either true or false is used to determine the on and off state of transistors in digital logic circuits.
But it is physically possible for a transistor in a digital logic circuit to be in a state of neither on nor off but somewhere in the middle if the circuit should malfunction. The application of logic would break down in that case. So the question is what characteristic in nature can be attributed to things that exist such that things that exist must necessarily always be in exclusively one state or the other. Then logic would always apply without exception. There is, of course, the characteristic of existence itself. If a proposition is true when it describes something that does exist, then a proposition is false when it is a description of something that does not exist. And so many times we ask whether it is true when someone makes a statement about things they claim to exist.
And related to existence and non-existence is construction and destruction. For the process of coming into existence is construction, and the process of going into non-existence is destruction. Nothing exists without going through the process of construction. Nothing ceases to exist without going through the process of destruction. For just as true is the negation of false, being constructed is the opposite of being destroyed. A thing cannot be both built and destroyed at the same time. Nor can a thing be neither in the process of being built and destroyed at the same time. Either the parts are coming together, or they are falling apart. And as any set of circumstances is in the process of coming together, any alternative of those circumstances is being destroyed.
Yet, the principles of logic are demonstrated by assigning propositions with values of true or false. And if a proposition could never be assigned the value of false, then the principles of logic could never be demonstrated. But we think of a statement as true when it describes something that exists and false when it describes something that does not exist. So if existence can only be described by propositions that are true, then how could the universe demonstrate the principles of logic without representing the state of false by something that yet exists? I believe that the question is answered by asking what is meant by saying something exists. When you say it is true that something exists, you are referring to a unit made up of individual pieces or perhaps you are referring to only the essential parts of that unit. If even one of the essential parts that define the unit no longer exists, then the statement that the unit exist is also false. For example, after a bomb explodes, we might still recognize the individual pieces that went into its construction. It is true that each mis-shaped piece still exists. But it is false that the bomb as a unit still exists. So in terms of things that still exist, false is represented by decay, malfunction, and destruction. Destruction and construction are the negation of each other just as true and false are the negation of each other. Everything that exists is in one state or the other, never both, never neither. But it may seem arbitrary and subjective as to which state it is in. For we could always arbitrarily re-define our propositions to whatever results out of the destruction, however ugly it may be, so that then the ugly mess is what is being constructed and is described by a proposition that is true. Then false propositions do not exist, and the universe cannot demonstrate logic without them. But I think that destruction and construction can be defined objectively in terms of things that continue to exist. For the process of construction cannot produce things that cannot hold together. And the process of destruction cannot produce things that cannot disintegrate. Truth, then, is represented by things that cannot be destroyed, and false is represented by things that cannot be repaired. So if the universe shall demonstrate what is true, then there must come entities that can survive destructive forces and continually repair itself from damage. And if the universe shall demonstrate what is false, then there must come entities that once existed as units but exist in a continual state of malfunction and self-destruction. It may take a high degree of organization and sophistication before the creation and destruction of any collection will be objectively not arbitrary. For a few particles coming together and flying apart may seem arbitrary. But the improbability of a large number of objects coming together to form a functioning unit that perpetuates its own functionality only serves to prove the objective nature of its false state of repair if it should malfunction to that extent. And so I believe that life is nature's way (Or God's way if you prefer) of demonstrating the characteristics of true and false. For life is that which continually renews itself and repairs itself so that it remains a functioning unit. And if these functioning units require the ability to act based on reason in order to survive, then those that understand what is true will survive, and the truth will survive with them. He who obtains eternal life, then, represents Truth itself in all of God's creation.
For related to existence and non-existence is life and death. Like true and false, a thing must either be alive or dead. It cannot be neither alive nor dead. It cannot be both alive and dead. And since a proposition is true if, and only if even the premise that it is false still proves that it is true, then truth in terms of life is expressed by a resurrection from the dead.
These ideas may need further work to make them more understandable. If you feel you can offer some constructive criticism, please offer your views. Thank you.
One vote per day, please