Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion

They exist in the realm of physics where matter and the forces of nature interact. These interactions occur whether we are there to observe them or not, and they follow what we would consider to be logical rules. I look at it a bit differently. Reality follows logical rules which is independent of us. In our minds we construct models that are abstractions of reality, but we reject or accept these models by how well they represent the external and independent reality. That is why I speak of logic "working", in that it can be verified independently of our beliefs. E=mc^2 whether we are around or not. The intensity of light drops by 1/4th at twice the distance whether we are there to see the light or not.At the same time, I do understand where you are coming from. From a metaphysical standpoint there is always Descartian doubt and the rest. However, I tend to look at logic from a more pragmatic viewpoint.

In my view of things, what you are leaving out is reality.When I brush my teeth in the morning I don't worry about such questions as "Is this toothbrush real, or is my visual model of the toothbrush a simulacrum of an external reality that is unreachable by my sense." Guess what? I just brush my fucking teeth. It seems to work.I don't want to make light of interesting philosophical questions or ideas because they are interesting and do tell us a lot about ourselves. However, at some point we all take a pragmatic position with regard to reality. Yes, there could be the evil demon in our head that tells us that 2+2 = 4 even though it really equals 5. Who fucking cares? 2+2 = 4 seems to work out when we interact with what seems to be the real world so why not use it?The real world seems to work in a logical and rational manner from everything we experience. Dogs bark and cats meow. Water boils, and rocks are hard. These things act this way in a consistent and predictable manner. I see no reason why that they act this way simply because we are around. Therefore, reason and logic are things that exist outside of ourselves. It is how the real world acts, with or without our existence.I only say this to help you understand where I am coming from. I know that later in your post you state that you will not be discussing this thread much farther, so I don't expect a reply. I just hope that this post helps you understand where I am coming from.

I am trying to untangle logic and reason from our ideas and language. In my view, there is a rational universe out there that does follow what we would consider to be logic and reason. How perfectly or imperfectly we communicate this logic and reason has nothing to do with the existence of that rational universe that follows logic and reason. I see no other way to find truth. If we can't even get past Descartian Dilemma (i.e. are we dreaming or not) then there is no way we can discover truth. At some point we have to take a pragmatic view that what we observe is real and rational. If we get bogged down in the philosophical quicksand of how to define truth we will never spend time actually looking for it.To be frank, when it comes to finding truth philosophy has helped very little. I tend to agree with Steven Weinberg who stated in his book "Dreams of a Final Theory" that (paraphrasing) the only positive thing that philosophy has done is point out bad philosophies. When it comes to figuring out how the world around us works philosophy has had little to do with new discoveries. What has worked is a pragmatic acceptance of a rational universe, leaving epistemologies to be argued over by guys who smoke pipes and wear sport coats instead of lab coats (just a little interdisciplinary ribbing, don't take it personal). False. All that is being said is that there is a geography that is conducive to mapping even if maps or cartographers do not exist. I think it is absurd to suggest that geography only exists because we make maps. It is this sort of pedantry that makes philosophy nearly irrelevant to discovering the truth. While philosophers discuss the meaning of "dog" there are people in the real world figuring out what makes a dog work and how it relates to the rest of biology. I have enjoyed our discussion so far. If you think I am wrong about something please let me know, and why you think so.

That is what I mean by a rational universe. I understand your argument. It just so happens that I don't see it as an important distinction. I see logic as an expectation of how things unfold. It is logical that if you stand out in the rain that you will get wet. We expect the world around us to act logically and rationally. In this way, I see logic as being "out there". It is how the universe acts. We may not understand that logic perfectly in all situations, or be able to communicate it clearly. However, it is still there. In that case you are saying that our model of "grey squirrel" exists in the real world and you don't find it fruitful to argue otherwise. I agree. This is the pragmatic view that I have been talking about. We can argue over where logic resides, but at the end of the day we forge ahead with the understanding that the universe follows logical rules.