Ok, I'm going to try to keep it as short as possible, for two reasons: first, I'm bored with you, and second I don't want to give you an excuse to not reply to my posts because they're too long. So here goes:
No, what I'm saying is that logic does not need to justify itself, since it is the language used in to justify other things inside the system where it is arbitrarilly used to determine correlations or interaction between the properties of the given system. Logic does not need to justify itself, because it is simply a rule-biased correlation between two given properties that interact in a system that is axiomatically closed. By this, I mean that the correlations are none-existant without you arbitrarilly determining that they will interact that way. The explanation is that description only exists with defintion, and thus, you cannot describe how a system will interact if you don't define the arbitrary pattern of interactions if you don't define a priori rules that the system must follow. Cause and effect determines only that two properties interact in a pre-determined way; it does not determine why the pattern is as such. For instance, if you throw an apple from a building, that's the cause that will cause the reactioin of it falling. But why doesen't it fall up? Logic predicts the reaction and the reaction indicates causality, but this is a concept that is arbitrary. My point is that, since logic explains effects of interactions inside systems arbitrarilly, it is arbitrary itself. Since deduction follows non-arbitrary, axiom-bound patterns of inferences to establish causality, the causality of logic cannot be infered because it is arbitrary "outside" the systm it is bound to explain. So, "outside" logic there is only pure abstrate an infinte potential, and the infinite possible logics that arise from that are arbitrarilly determined "perceptions" of how these potentials interact. Get it?
No, I didn't say that something is responsible. What I'm saying is that cause-and-effect do not really exist "outside" the system that it is bound to explain, so your assertion that "cause and effect is not ecplained by logic" is ridiculous, because it does not need to explain itself. For instance, you cannot explain numbers with mathematics; you can simply explain the interactions between numbers. And there are infinite mathematics possible based on slight changes in it's axioms. So logic cannot explain itself, because it is based on the a priori assumption of non-arbitrarity, but it is itself arbitrary. So, if there is no logic "outside" the system that it is bound to explain, than what is logic and what is the system? The answer is that the cause-and-effect rule that governs our physical reality is an arbitrary "perception" of potentials that are governed by meta-logic. Meta-logic is based on the assumption that, unlike specific logics, it cannot contradict itself, because contradiction results from a deviation of an arbitrarilly bound perception of something. In other words, contradictions are an illusion to meta-logic which creates logics that determine that everything is possible. So cause and effect does not really exist axcept as an arbitrary, a priori created language that describes these patterns of interactions, which are nonp-arbitrary "inside" the systmes that it rules, but which is arbitrary to meta-logic.
And speaking of quantum mechanics, not one knows why this discipline is incompatible with general relativity. The only explantion posssible is that restrictive releativity is an illusion, which arises from Einstein's attmeps to explain contradictions between physical laws by bending these rules. What he didn't underastand is that the rules do not need bending inside itself, because at the levels of quarks and other very smalle particels, the specific pattern of interaction that gives rise to out physical universe arises, and it is arbitrary because it is controlled by meta-logic! By the way, no one knows what the essence of reality is made of. What Immanuel Kant called "the thing into itself". It could be quarks, or super-strings, or whatever; it doesen't matter. If we embrass my theory, we could simply define the smallest particle possible as a "potential", and the infinte patterns of arbitrary interactions between these potential give rise to infinte realities, governed by infinite rules, or by no rules at all. So: logic = language = description = perception = defintion. "Definition", in this context, means that we assume the axiom of all axioms, that existence exists. This could also be untrue, and meta-logic, the creator of all definitions and of all perceptions, certainly is based on the a priori assumption that it does not require a priori assumprions to exist. 
But what causes the gluons? First they found protons, then electrons, then quarks, etc. Where does it end? And why is it even relevant, since, at the basest level, we could simply define the sammles particel possible as "potential", or, better yet, "definition". It could be that quantum mechanics is wrong altogether, and there is another arbitrary systmem beyond the quantum level that defines how particles interact. Regardless, it doesen't matter, because at the end it's all a matter of definition and perception: reality exists because there is a lowest, unknown definition of the potentials that create it, and infinte possible realities that transcend logic. I have refuted your claim that nothing cause and effect is not explained by logic by demonstrating that no explanation is needed, because logic itself is an illusion, an arbitrary perception of meta-reality that arises because you choose to describe it that way.
Nothing of this negates free-will. Unless you assume that every cause has a specific cause that preceeds it, in which case there is only one possible future. But this is not the case. Meta-reality is all inclusive of all possible realities, so there are infinite possibilities for the future. Volition is alreadyfactored in. It is based on the assumption that the causesu choose leads to the causes hat determine your future, and that your other possible futures contain you merely as a potential.
Nothing, because causes do not really exist, except as perceptions of arbitrary relationship between potentials. Hence, your premisse here is false: all causes are preceeded by causes inside the system where it was arbitrarilly chosen to rule over, but it does it was not, itself, caused by anything because causes are illusions of perception and definition. How many times I'll have to explain this to you? 
But there doesn't need to exist a first cause! All that ther needs to be is for meta-logic to decide that there is a first cause, as an axiom, and all effects and causes will follow after that. What's so hard for you to understand? 
By why does the original caue have to arise from anything at all? Again, you're trying to justify the existance of mathematics with numbers! Causes don't reallu exist, except if you define it as such and then perceive reality with it? Game over...again.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Cool post, SUCKMYMUSCLE, although I really disagree with a few points. Here are some of my thoughts:
- It’s not so much that logic does not need to justify itself, rather simply logic is not able to justify itself. Something cannot justify itself, as I think you might have touched on earlier in the thread. However, the distinction- whilst it might appear trivial- is worth drawing, as talk of needs (the need to justify) seems to edge towards subjectivisation. I’m not saying that that’s necessarily a bad - and it appears as if you might be arguing down that line further in your post anyway- but it’s a distinction worth clarifying. So, do you mean to say that logic does not need to justify itself, because it can’t, or simply that logic cannot justify itself- with no attention given to needs (the need to justify is only something relative to our perception of it; justification is a process intrinsic within conscious, perceiving subjects- an external system’s behaviour does not need to be- and isn’t- justified in order to behave)? Put simply, if it’s right, then it’s right. So, I wouldn’t even bother replying to claims that logic needs to justify itself from a justification-based perspective.
- There’s another problem with asserting that something needs to be justified in order to be true (is this what NeoSeminole is arguing?). If you have a system which purports to explain basic meta-interactions, and if you hold that it needs to be justified by another system (say, a meta-system, such as the meta-logic you spoke of earlier) in order to be true, or accurate- or a weaker claim, justified in order for us to incorporate it as knowledge- then it is impossible to have a system of knowledge so long as the concept of knowledge incorporates truth, for the simple fact that it will never be justified. The system (logic) will need to be justified by the meta-system (meta-logic), which in turn will need to be justified by the meta-meta-system (meta-meta-logic) and so on, ad infinitum. Of course the end result of this is that we can never interpret the external world in such a fashion that we can arrive at a claim which we can hold to be knowledge, and an application of this claim is that we can never know the answer to this thread- was Dorian ’95/’93 better than Ronnie ‘99/’03/’01ASC?- and so anyone pushing this claim, on the one hand, and on the other, asserting that one was better than the other, has a massive global contradiction in their system of beliefs. As I said before, if logic is right, then it’s right- without it needing to be justified.
- ‘The explanation is that description only exists with defintion, and thus, you cannot describe how a system will interact if you don't define the arbitrary pattern of interactions if you don't define a priori rules that the system must follow’
I guess that description- talk about the world- can only occur with definition- and of course, as you rightly point out, descriptions of external interactions cannot exist without definitions of concepts. It does not necessarily follow, however, that these definitions (or at least some) need be arbitrary- that is, that the attitude taken is that a priori rules need be conventionalist. One could alternatively hold that the a priori rules of the universe are inherent within all of us- such as a Kantian system of beliefs- and that we don’t need to create arbitrary systems of language/logic, as the a priori axioms are, ‘known,’ to us by virtue of us being human, and all we need do is build a system from there. Possibly, one doesn’t even have to adopt this (rather extreme) view to hold that axiomatic rules are not arbitrary. It’s possible to state that there are basic laws which govern interactions in the external reality, and it is possible to know these by discovering them. These basic laws form axioms in a system of description. That is, you could deny that the axiomatic laws of the external universe are knowable a priori. In fact- you seem to conflating a priori with arbitrariness, when the two are really contradictory concepts. Perhaps you meant axiomatic?
Again, one doesn’t need to hold that logic explains things in an arbitrary manner- that is; you don’t need to say that the axioms upon which the system of logic is formed are arbitrary. You could adopt the view that they exist in the external reality as basic laws governing the behaviour of things, and that they form the axioms of the systems of descriptive language when we discover their existence and form. How do we interpret them and order them in to a system of language without arbitrariness? I have no idea, I’ll think about it.
- So, "outside" logic there is only pure abstrate an infinte potential, and the infinite possible logics that arise from that are arbitrarilly determined "perceptions" of how these potentials interact.
What do you mean by this? What is abstrate, and potential in this context?
You could adopt the view that cause/effect does exist outside its explanatory system, only in a real, non-abstract form. That is, we use language to build the concept of the law of cause and effect which describes interactions which exist outside of our heads. So, cause and effect might very well be a basic law of the universe governing the behaviour of the interactions of things; the law of cause and effect is our attempt to interpret and describe it- but the basic law occurred long before our formulation of it in to words, and will exist long after.
- So cause and effect does not really exist axcept as an arbitrary, a priori created language that describes these patterns of interactions, which are nonp-arbitrary "inside" the systmes that it rules, but which is arbitrary to meta-logic.
If I’m reading this correctly, this is a very strange sentence. How can a language be both arbitrary and a priori? The definition of a priori is that it is knowable before sense-perception (I’m sure you know this). How can we formulate a system of language which is both arbitrary, and knowable before sense perception? One needs sense perception in order to form conventions and arrive at an arbitrary system. It’s like saying that mathematics is built on a system of a priori truths; this means that they are universal laws which we are able to know before sense perception. Yet, if it is also arbitrary, then it implies that it is conventionalised- simply agreed upon and arrived at.
Further, cause and effect might well exist outside of any system of logic, meta-logic or language- it might be ‘real’. So, perhaps you should clarify whether you mean cause and effect in the sense of our definition of it, or of some objective, external concept?
- Just because no one knows what the essence of reality is (what on earth does this mean, anyway?), doesn’t logically imply that it isn’t possible to know.
- If we embrass my theory, we could simply define the smallest particle possible as a "potential", and the infinte patterns of arbitrary interactions between these potential give rise to infinte realities, governed by infinite rules, or by no rules at all
Way out of sequence, I don’t think this logically follows at all. What you’re saying is that the amount of realities hinges upon some infinite amount of possible arbitrary interpretations- idealism at its most naked. You should explain your theory more extensively, so we can see what it implies, and upon what it is based.
- logic = language = description = perception = defintion.
Are you giving an order to this, or merely equating them? Obviously, they are all not the same thing, so I assume you use ‘=’ in place of ‘implies.’ If this is the case, then this is a gross generalisation and once applied to context, doesn’t hold in many situations.
- And why is it even relevant, since, at the basest level, we could simply define the sammles particel possible as "potential", or, better yet, "definition”
I agree that we don’t need to know where it ends to postulate a smallest possible particle called a potential, yet what do you mean by equating this with definition? This is grossly conflating the subjective and objective components of perception. The potential exists, independent from any definition of its existence.
- it doesen't matter, because at the end it's all a matter of definition and perception: reality exists because there is a lowest, unknown definition of the potentials that create it, and infinte possible realities that transcend logic.
What’s all a matter of definition and perception? Reality exists because reality exists, and because it came in to existence, end of story. Again, just because something is unknown, does not imply that it cannot be known. Further, reality does not exist because there are infinite possible realities that transcend logic. The fact that there are infinite possible realities is merely a consequence of reality existing.
- The answer is that the cause-and-effect rule that governs our physical reality is an arbitrary "perception" of potentials that are governed by meta-logic
Weird- perception isn’t arbitrary.
- I don’t think that you’ve demonstrated that logic is an illusion, or arbitrary at all. I gave some possible alternatives above.
Let me leave you with a question- do you acknowledge that the system you are attempting to build is quite a blatant form of idealism? I’m not using this offensively of course- idealism isn’t a dirty word. But I’d just like to know how you see your system so I can understand it better.
- Bodybuilding is a
visual sport. This should really be self-evident- a bunch of judges sit a few metres back from the stage, view (perceive) the physiques on stage and evaluate them. If you say that perception is arbitrary, then you cannot, in the same breath, uphold arguments that one is better than the other because one beat the other so many times- after all, perception is arbitrary, as you seem to be saying. Further, it also implies that the mathematical measuring of physiques has no place- this is a sport which is subjectively assessed, according to subjectively formed criteria. Why pretend otherwise? This whole thread could have been avoided with acknowledgement of this simple fact- there is
no better bodybuilder from Ronnie 99/03 or Dorian 93/95- because no one can objectively define bodybuilder, and better, in this context.
