Vadriel
Bite my shiny metal ass!
Logic, as with basic thought processes, is heavily language-based. Logic, as with time, is an abstract creation of a human mind, developed to explain the unexplainable and create a sort of order to the world around us. It allows for organization of thoughts.
This isn't to say that the circumstances defined by logic are not truly constant and defined, but our interpretations of them and sociological definitions are subject to variation based upon our cultural paradigms. If a single stick is held, and another is picked up, there are still the same number of tangible objects there as if somebody had three sticks and dropped one. It's all a matter of what we see them as being. That quantity is typically considered to be "two," but it could just as easily and without consequence be "fifty." The tangible quantity would remain the same, but the representative notation for it is completely variable based upon what we see it as.
This is all dependant on our language. The quantity that English speakers call "two" exists the same for Spanish speakers, but they know it as "dos." The French know it as "duex" I believe...as the Germans call it "zwei." Numbers and names mean nothing, the concept remains unchanged no matter what it's called. One and one will always make two, even if "one" is called "four" and "two" is called "seven hundred and sixty-three." This is not logic, it is a property of organized reality.
Time is another abstract, and a similar example. The effects of time exist. A living subject generally deteriorates over time until such a point when life cannot be sustained any longer. We chart the distance between life initation, deterioration, and death by a system we have created known as time. It's a unit of measurement, just like the meter or the mile. That deterioration would occur whether we had a concept of time or not, it just so happens that we do. We are aware of the deterioration, and have invented a concept that explains it and puts it into terms understandable by our cognitive processes. It's a system of organization of properties that is constant whether we can understand and define it or not.
An example of time's mutability and indefinition is that of the human concept of time zones. The same point in existance, the same exact instant, is both today, yesterday, and tomorrow. If I manage to fly fast enough to go back a few time zones, and land in a place where the time is 4 hours earlier than where I originated, would my body reverse the aging process by four hours? If I were to reverse the process and instead move 6 time zones ahead, would my body age an hour every time I crossed a time zone border? No, my body would continue to age in a constant motion independant of the measure of time that humans have established. I would not get any younger if I moved backwards, and I would not age any more rapidly if I moved forwards than the amount of time required to actually move from place to place.
Time is constant, no matter how we define it. In some ways, such as the one above, our definition and measurement of time is inaccurate and doesn't hold true to fundamental properties of reality.
And our interpretation of all these realities is heavily dependant on what concepts we are able to process and understand in our minds, which is similarly dependant on our language.
If we have no word or set of words that can define a concept, we can't understand that concept. Luckily our languages are so vast and diversified that there is a way to describe most concepts, but how can we know that we can define and understand every single concept? By nature, if there is no word for it, how could we conceive of it?
We think in terms of our language, even moreso than we express ourselves in it. Language is the key to thought. A good example is adapted from George Orwell's 1984. In that book, the controlling society was working on culling the dictionaries and languages, destroying words that referred to concepts they did not desire their people to know. One such example is the concept of rebellion. If there is no such thing as the word "rebellion," nor is there any proper way to put words together to represent the meaning of the word "rebellion", can the people ever hope to even understand that such a concept exists? I mean, does the concept not still exist? Of course the concept continues to exist, as if people understood the idea of it, they could easily enact a rebellion...but the problem is that to them there is no such thing or idea as a rebellion. Rebellion does not exist to them, even if it is a constant concept that continues to be possible in reality.
So basically, to sum it up...I believe that the order of reality and all its properties are constant, unchanging, and transcendant of all reality. To me, there is nothing beyond reality. If a God exists and is real, he is bound by the laws of reality. He cannot take one tangible object, pick up another, and have three tangible objects. He will still only have two, because however named, the concept of "two" remains constant.
However, who is to say that there doesn't exist a concept beyond reality, but is inconceivable because we have no terms of understanding it? It's like our concept of color. Other wavelengths besides the ones we can percieve do exist...but we cannot conceive of what they may look like...because we have no way of imagining them. You cannot invent a color, because our minds cannot process it. Any color you can think of is within our perceivable spectrum...but who is to say that is all there is?
Does God exist, in our plane of understanding or in another? It's possible. If he exists in a plane beyond our comprehension, may he somehow be transcendant of our concepts? Of course, it's possible. Will any human ever know? Probably not...I can't conceive of a way, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
This isn't to say that the circumstances defined by logic are not truly constant and defined, but our interpretations of them and sociological definitions are subject to variation based upon our cultural paradigms. If a single stick is held, and another is picked up, there are still the same number of tangible objects there as if somebody had three sticks and dropped one. It's all a matter of what we see them as being. That quantity is typically considered to be "two," but it could just as easily and without consequence be "fifty." The tangible quantity would remain the same, but the representative notation for it is completely variable based upon what we see it as.
This is all dependant on our language. The quantity that English speakers call "two" exists the same for Spanish speakers, but they know it as "dos." The French know it as "duex" I believe...as the Germans call it "zwei." Numbers and names mean nothing, the concept remains unchanged no matter what it's called. One and one will always make two, even if "one" is called "four" and "two" is called "seven hundred and sixty-three." This is not logic, it is a property of organized reality.
Time is another abstract, and a similar example. The effects of time exist. A living subject generally deteriorates over time until such a point when life cannot be sustained any longer. We chart the distance between life initation, deterioration, and death by a system we have created known as time. It's a unit of measurement, just like the meter or the mile. That deterioration would occur whether we had a concept of time or not, it just so happens that we do. We are aware of the deterioration, and have invented a concept that explains it and puts it into terms understandable by our cognitive processes. It's a system of organization of properties that is constant whether we can understand and define it or not.
An example of time's mutability and indefinition is that of the human concept of time zones. The same point in existance, the same exact instant, is both today, yesterday, and tomorrow. If I manage to fly fast enough to go back a few time zones, and land in a place where the time is 4 hours earlier than where I originated, would my body reverse the aging process by four hours? If I were to reverse the process and instead move 6 time zones ahead, would my body age an hour every time I crossed a time zone border? No, my body would continue to age in a constant motion independant of the measure of time that humans have established. I would not get any younger if I moved backwards, and I would not age any more rapidly if I moved forwards than the amount of time required to actually move from place to place.
Time is constant, no matter how we define it. In some ways, such as the one above, our definition and measurement of time is inaccurate and doesn't hold true to fundamental properties of reality.
And our interpretation of all these realities is heavily dependant on what concepts we are able to process and understand in our minds, which is similarly dependant on our language.
If we have no word or set of words that can define a concept, we can't understand that concept. Luckily our languages are so vast and diversified that there is a way to describe most concepts, but how can we know that we can define and understand every single concept? By nature, if there is no word for it, how could we conceive of it?
We think in terms of our language, even moreso than we express ourselves in it. Language is the key to thought. A good example is adapted from George Orwell's 1984. In that book, the controlling society was working on culling the dictionaries and languages, destroying words that referred to concepts they did not desire their people to know. One such example is the concept of rebellion. If there is no such thing as the word "rebellion," nor is there any proper way to put words together to represent the meaning of the word "rebellion", can the people ever hope to even understand that such a concept exists? I mean, does the concept not still exist? Of course the concept continues to exist, as if people understood the idea of it, they could easily enact a rebellion...but the problem is that to them there is no such thing or idea as a rebellion. Rebellion does not exist to them, even if it is a constant concept that continues to be possible in reality.
So basically, to sum it up...I believe that the order of reality and all its properties are constant, unchanging, and transcendant of all reality. To me, there is nothing beyond reality. If a God exists and is real, he is bound by the laws of reality. He cannot take one tangible object, pick up another, and have three tangible objects. He will still only have two, because however named, the concept of "two" remains constant.
However, who is to say that there doesn't exist a concept beyond reality, but is inconceivable because we have no terms of understanding it? It's like our concept of color. Other wavelengths besides the ones we can percieve do exist...but we cannot conceive of what they may look like...because we have no way of imagining them. You cannot invent a color, because our minds cannot process it. Any color you can think of is within our perceivable spectrum...but who is to say that is all there is?
Does God exist, in our plane of understanding or in another? It's possible. If he exists in a plane beyond our comprehension, may he somehow be transcendant of our concepts? Of course, it's possible. Will any human ever know? Probably not...I can't conceive of a way, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
