Does time invalidate logic as a means of analyzing reality?

It seems to me that if a logical paradox demonstrably exists in reality, than logic, logically, cannot be a valid way to analyze reality. I think time may be such a phenomenon (if you can even call it that).

The paradox arises thusly: if I promise to give you a hamburger after infinite time, that is equivalent to saying I will never give you a hamburger. Similarly, saying that time stretches infinitely into the past is nonsensical, because that would place us at the end of an already infinite series of events, the end of which, by definition, cannot exist.

Such would seem to demand that time had a beginning. However, beginnings happen in time. That is part of the definition of a beginning. That time began meant that at one moment, there was no time, and the next moment, there was. Except there could be no moment where there was no time, because moments are a part of time.

It's difficult to get quite the right words for this, but do y'all get what I'm saying? If one of the fundamentals by which we experience violates logic, then thinking of the world logically will lead to fallacies.

If time could be objectively viewed time would just be a thing like heighth width and depth. It wouldn't have a begining, it would simply be a condition of the state of things.

Anyways i'm kind of confused on logic. Fallacies are bad logic, so if thinking logically is bad logic, there is an inherant self contradiction in logic, but self contradiction can only be established by using logic. So it must be said that logic is a given. But are givens logical?-- it's like a paradox but not I think. I dunno, my head's gonna explode.

banned:

If time could be objectively viewed time would just be a thing like heighth width and depth. It wouldn't have a begining, it would simply be a condition of the state of things.

I dunno. Some people say that, but I don't think we really perceive time as a dimension. It seems very different than space. If we cannot view time objectively, does that mean that maybe there is no objective meaning to time? But if there is no objective meaning to time, than there can be no objectivity to anything that happens within time. Er...

banned:

Anyways i'm kind of confused on logic. Fallacies are bad logic, so if thinking logically is bad logic, there is an inherant self contradiction in logic, but self contradiction can only be established by using logic. So it must be said that logic is a given. But are givens logical?-- it's like a paradox but not I think. I dunno, my head's gonna explode.

It a head splodey kind of thing. However, logic can be used to analyze logic in relation to reality, just not reality itself, if in reality logical paradoxes exist.

Really? Does noone else have the gonadal fortitude to take this issue on? Come on, people. Banned at least put his toes in, and he's Banned!

JCFolsom:

Really? Does noone else have the gonadal fortitude to take this issue on? Come on, people. Banned at least put his toes in, and he's Banned!

Take what issue on? I think it's a non-issue only made to appear to be a serious issue by confusion. If you're interested, email me for a copy of Roderick Long's ""Future Truth and Leibniz’s Law: An Aristotelean Sea Battle in a Heracleitean River." It might help clear things up for you.

We say "time began" for lack of a better term, that all.

Logic implies time.  Causation implies a period over which something is caused, a state before a change and after.

I would also note that logic is the only method for analyzing reality.

It'd be impossible to even formulate an argument abandoning logic, as it'd entail rejecting the law of noncontradiction, hence one would both argue and not argue that logic ought to be abandoned.

-Jon

R.J. Moore II:

Logic implies time.  Causation implies a period over which something is caused, a state before a change and after.

I would also note that logic is the only method for analyzing reality.

That is a false statement. I can think of mystical and hedonistic ways of analyzing reality right off the top of my head. You might say it is the only correct way of analyzing reality, but that is what is in question.

JCFolsom:

R.J. Moore II:

Logic implies time.  Causation implies a period over which something is caused, a state before a change and after.

I would also note that logic is the only method for analyzing reality.

That is a false statement. I can think of mystical and hedonistic ways of analyzing reality right off the top of my head. You might say it is the only correct way of analyzing reality, but that is what is in question.

Or you could say they're not analyzing reality. Depends on how you define your terms.

I'd also recommending several other works by Roderick Long:

"Anti-Psychologism in Economics: Wittgenstein and Mises"

Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action

But what is everybody's answer to the paradox posted?

Has time existed always, Infinitely into the past? Making it impossible to arrive at now.

Or did time have a start, meaning the beginning of time needed an action that existed before time?  things can't start or stop without action.

I personally don't think there is proper understanding of time, making any such logic based on false assumptions.

javier:

But what is everybody's answer to the paradox posted?

There is no paradox

javier:

Has time existed always, Infinitely into the past? Making it impossible to arrive at now.

Time always existing doesn't make it impossible to arrive at now any more than, say, space extending to infinity all around you makes it impossible to be where you are.

javier:

Or did time have a start, meaning the beginning of time needed an action that existed before time?  things can't start or stop without action.

How long is a piece of string?  Where's the beginning of  a circle?

JCFolsom:

The paradox arises thusly: if I promise to give you a hamburger after infinite time, that is equivalent to saying I will never give you a hamburger. Similarly, saying that time stretches infinitely into the past is nonsensical, because that would place us at the end of an already infinite series of events, the end of which, by definition, cannot exist.

If by some crazy twist of fate you were standing on the inside edge of a huge circle would the fact that there was no perceivable end or beginning invalidate the existence of the circle?

The fact that we chose to call a concept 'time' that we as a species are incapable of fully perceiving doesn't in any way change whether it exists or has a beginning or end. All we can really do is to observe the effects of this phenomena and base our system of understanding of the natural world on this understanding.

JCFolsom:

Such would seem to demand that time had a beginning. However, beginnings happen in time. That is part of the definition of a beginning. That time began meant that at one moment, there was no time, and the next moment, there was. Except there could be no moment where there was no time, because moments are a part of time.

All that is really required is for your perception of 'time' to have a beginning and end for you to use it as a tool to understand the world around you.

A system of logic based on the limited portion of this 'time' that humans have collectively observed could indeed be incorrect but then again it seems to do the job pretty well. It is quite possible that 'time' is an entirely made up concept that doesn't even exist if there is nothing to observe it like the old 'tree in the forest' question.

I wouldn't base any arguments on this 'time' invalidating logic theory you have concocted though. To be quite honest I can't prove that 'you' exist beyond a reasonable doubt and are not either a figment of my imagination or part of some governmental mind control experiment. If I were to base my arguments on this lack of proof then I'd start sounding like fsk who is convinced I'm some sort of 'establishment' astroturfer because I don't accept the validity of his fallacious pet theories. Yeah, don't be that guy.

Paul:

How long is a piece of string?  Where's the beginning of  a circle?

As long as the string is? Um...

Are you then taking the Eastern view of time as a circle? If not, at the leading edge of the circle, pretty much from whatever direction you're facing it. Poor analogies both. Try again.

Anonymous Coward:

If by some crazy twist of fate you were standing on the inside edge of a huge circle would the fact that there was no perceivable end or beginning invalidate the existence of the circle?

So, are you taking a literally cyclic view of time.

Anonymous Coward:

I wouldn't base any arguments on this 'time' invalidating logic theory you have concocted though. To be quite honest I can't prove that 'you' exist beyond a reasonable doubt and are not either a figment of my imagination or part of some governmental mind control experiment.

Another argument against logic. If logic cannot establish even the existence of other beings, it really isn't a great tool for analyzing reality. Taking that first step to believing other beings are more than illusions requires an analysis of reality from (most likely) a hedonistic perspective; basically, living with constant doubt that anything else exists would suck. Plus, we know the world and other people exist, we just can't prove it.

JCFolsom:

Another argument against logic. If logic cannot establish even the existence of other beings, it really isn't a great tool for analyzing reality. Taking that first step to believing other beings are more than illusions requires an analysis of reality from (most likely) a hedonistic perspective; basically, living with constant doubt that anything else exists would suck. Plus, we know the world and other people exist, we just can't prove it.

We do indeed know that the world and other people (and all other facets of reality) exist.  It is not a matter of proof.  That would be using the concept of "proof" in an inappropriate context.  Its like saying that you can't prove 2+2=4.

JCFolsom:

Anonymous Coward:

I wouldn't base any arguments on this 'time' invalidating logic theory you have concocted though. To be quite honest I can't prove that 'you' exist beyond a reasonable doubt and are not eithe