Does the explanation by logic lead to nothing?
For many people, things are simply logical. For example, in physics, everything is explained by logical proofs. But that goes on to infinity. What I mean is something like this:
Why can we stand on Earth?
Because of gravity
And why do they exist?
Without these everything would collapse.
OK, and who or what or how did this come about? Who thought of it? Why is there no universe without gravity, etc.
I hope you understand what I mean. You can ask "why" for every answer, and so on. Many things are explained using logic, but ultimately it all leads to a question that cannot be answered.
(1 votes)
Loading...
What you do is an infinite regression. However, this does not trigger logic because it functions within this regression and can use it as an argument to legitimize itself, away from the theory of knowledge. Logic does not consist only of the causal principle, which is inherent in this regression. You’ve already explained that quite well. The logic/philosophy marvels the last reasons as vague hypotheses (or even not) in order to function itself. The logic is therefore completely anthropogenic, constructed and, as you have recognized it correctly, does not include everything.
No, in physics everything is falsified by experiments. Logic is a human mind construct that does not interest nature, but that makes the inventors of the Perpetuum Mobiles believe in the functioning of their machines.
that doesn’t mean “genital power”, but gravitation.
each mass, whether large, whether small, exerts an attraction on other masses. only with this power our university has developed as we know today.
up to the water in the oceans, that from the moon is attracted or moved with bbe and cursed every day 2 times during the erd-rotation (only slightly), our earth with its enormous mass attracts everything else, even the moon.
and both are subject to the gravitation of our sun, which will be engraved with a few billion stars in our Milky Way by an unimaginable large mass in the zentraum
whether everyone wants to understand or understand is on another sheet. ignorance is never a argument for objective and emotion-free discussion
The decisive factor in this “why – approach” is only at which point one regards something as axiomatic.
The axiom system of theCummy-Fraenkel-Mengenlehrerecognized as a basis. In other disciplines, of course, this can reach even deeper levels. However, physics doesn’t care whether or not their basic assumptions of mathematics are recognized as a descriptive language.
Similar to spoken languages. Words can often be traced back to Latin terms, these contrary to other originals, etc. But at some point there is also the point where something was simply defined. The initial language itself doesn’t itch. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if someone accepts defined axiom systems or asks them. In the framework of the accepted principles, it is nevertheless true.
Logic does not have much to do.