0

I am interested in how fundamentally important measurement is in the process of logical thought. At what point in the logical process are we no longer engaged in some form of measurement. Measurement always involves the comparison of points of reference. In the evolution of logic, when, if ever, do we depart from this process? I believe answering this question is critical to understanding how logic works. ie: Whatever there is that gives us the ability to measure, is what constructs logic.

Daniel Patrick Fisher
  • 1
  • 2
  • 1
    "conclusion is measurement, analysis is measurement, deduction is measurement" In what sense ? – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jun 12 '19 at 11:42
  • 1
    Is there any one you are reading who suggests this to you? This might help provide context. Welcome. – Frank Hubeny Jun 12 '19 at 11:51
  • A conclusion is the result of comparing (measuring) the relative (measurement) merit of various things, objects, thoughts "measured" as being distinctly different, but related (measurement). – Daniel Patrick Fisher Jun 12 '19 at 13:08
  • You can't analyze what you have not defined (measured). You must "weigh" (measure) the meaning of each element to see how similar (measurement) or different (measurement) it is. – Daniel Patrick Fisher Jun 12 '19 at 13:13
  • When I "deduce" what is true or untrue I compare (measure) it to other truths evaluated (measured) to be correct. – Daniel Patrick Fisher Jun 12 '19 at 13:20
  • I don't know of any relevant text concerning this concept specifically that has been published. – Daniel Patrick Fisher Jun 12 '19 at 13:22
  • Thta is an analogy... What are the properties/characteristics of measurement process that you think are relevant to analyze the deductive process ? – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jun 12 '19 at 15:03
  • 2
    It seems that this is a question not about philosophy, but about how far one can stretch the dictionary meaning of "measure". And the answer is: as far as one wishes. What exactly is there to study? – Conifold Jun 12 '19 at 18:06
  • Please understand that I am not trying to be "cute". I would genuinely like to know it there is something about how logic works that is fundamentally dissimilar to the act of measuring. – Daniel Patrick Fisher Jun 12 '19 at 19:48
  • When we measure something, we compare two or more points of reference to arrive at an answer. Does it matter how complex those points of reference are? – Daniel Patrick Fisher Jun 12 '19 at 20:42
  • "Measuring" is in some sense implicitly admitting a unit and its repetition. Your question folds to the following: isn't Logic intimate with the notion of Quantity, so much so that one might just confuse the two ? If that's what you're seeking to approach, then you might have a better luck finding some philosophical work on Calculability of thought. Otherwise, you might have an authentic angle, but you'll have to expend on it so we can better appreciate it. Welcome btw ! – Gloserio Jun 12 '19 at 21:13
  • I would agree that "measuring" is most useful (recognizable) when dealing with well defined and agreed upon units, quantities, points of reference. As for repetition, well, is there anything in reality that is never repeated? In a practical sense, when are we not dealing with repetition? – Daniel Patrick Fisher Jun 13 '19 at 12:10
  • I will assume that "Calculabilty of thought" refers to "thought" as a noun not a verb, and yes, "thoughts" are difficult to quantify, and consequently more difficult to "add up". But does that mean we never try? Less precision doesn't imply more logical. I'm focusing on the fundamental mechanics of what we are trying to do, not how successful we are, which can be debated forever. Are we really doing (or intending) anything different as our points of reference become more difficult to define? btw Thank you for a thoughtful and knowledgeable response. – Daniel Patrick Fisher Jun 13 '19 at 12:34
  • I am not confusing quantity with logic. We have two different words because they identify two separate concepts. Logic is a process. Quantity is a sum or an estimation. I am suggesting that we examine the possibility that all points of reference in a logical argument are the sum of well defined parameters, and in essence, represent a quantity, numerical or otherwise. As the logical process gets more complex because the "quantities" are more difficult to define, does the computation principle change in a fundamental way? – Daniel Patrick Fisher Jun 13 '19 at 18:23
  • The above question is plenty clear, as is the absence of a creditable example for an answer. Since I have no way of knowing the scholarship level of the participants, it would be hard to conclude that no example exists, just likely. – Daniel Patrick Fisher Jun 17 '19 at 14:43

1 Answers1

1

A teacher of mine liked to point out – with some glee – how opposite western and indian philosophers are on the question of measurement.

Lord Kelvin (also Planck) said : Only that which can be measured is real

Sankara, with the starting point that the real must be non limited, therefore infinite, concluded that what can be measured cannot possibly be real.

How relevant this is to your question I don't know.... Except to say that the commitment to measureability is probably more ethnocentric than we may imagine.

Rushi
  • 2,637
  • 2
  • 7
  • 28
  • I would imagine that Lord Kelvin and Plank are saying that 99.99-whatever% accurate is good enough to call it real. While Sankara is saying "If you can't be 100% certain, why bother?" This is typical of the preferred approach by each to philosophical questions. Both, however, are using logic propelled by measurement. How would Sankara know what infinity was if he hadn't tried to measure it? Sankara may distrust logic and measurement, but he is using logic (and measurement) to dismiss it. – Daniel Patrick Fisher Jun 12 '19 at 19:11
  • How would you (or Sankara) measure the infinite? This is only quasi-sarcastic because if you elaborate in detail what that would/could mean you would see that infinity implies the failure mode of measurement(fmm) AND NOT vice versa. ie fmm does not imply infinity. IOW math101: big ≠ infinity. Aside: Ob the computers on which I grew up infinity = 32767 – Rushi Jun 13 '19 at 06:09
  • Let's just say our measuring system has a very clear and well defined boundary: infinity. – Daniel Patrick Fisher Jun 13 '19 at 12:41