This is obviously a false ananlogy; comparing a necessary abstract law with an arbitrary unnecessary name given to a particular physical entity.
No, it's not a false analogy. It makes sense from the perspective of logic to give colors names. Simple identification, that's all there is to it. It's all far less absolute than you wish to believe. It's abstract and quite subjective at times, as long as it still makes sense within a certain frame of logic.
"In math, as it's perhaps the easiest thing to explain a certain kind of logic with, 2 and 2 added together makes 4 basically because we agreed upon it."
So we could all agree then that 2 plus 2 would equal 5 and it would? Come on now.
No, because of the physical metric nature of the application of math, 2 plus 2 equals 5 would simply not work and cause problems, of course assuming that we count 1,2,3,4,5 and not 1,2,3,5,4, or something. Which believe it or not is as arbitrary as choosing a name for a color.
There has been a time where people discovered all this, thought about it and so on. Way before your Bible ever existed.
I gave the color example on purpose to show a difference.
So it sounds self verifying but it really is a simple choice?
Yes, of course. We can choose whatever number we decide upon is 2 times 2, in the end it's self verifying but only after we decided to make a choice. There's no contradiction in this.
Plus your inference here is that the laws of logic arise from physical laws. The laws of logic in this view are based on the inherent property of a thing.
No, I just gave an example. Apart from that it's just one of the kinds of logic there are,
Plus the law of identity 'whatever is- is' would be associated with the conclusion that there can be no change (whatever is- would change). So this would contradict evolution.
Another empty claim. Deduction is only one of the methods to study logic. In this case mathematical logic. There are many more.
It is not suprising that you cannot see the solution found in the bible, you fail to apprehend the problem.
Ah, the good old 'you don't understand, because you just don't understand' argument. I'd say, try again man.
Maybe you can elaborate on this 'metaphysical principle'. Do our thoughts create logic or does logic create our thoughts?
Sure.. logic is simply (one of) the core piece(s) of general interpretation. I assume you are aware of the fact that metaphysics is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world. I'm not talking about the non-philosophy related 'metaphysics' that gets used as buzzword for religious purposes of how 'there's more to life'. Covering topics as 'spirit', 'soul' and so on.
I think you are trying to say that different fields of 'science' carry with them self verifying "logics" to evaluate inter-field hypothesis. So that you would not proceed to prove barometric pressure the exact same way you would prove blood pressure.
You have to understand that the choice of which logic to use is entirely arbitrary. However when it comes to theory vs. practice, you will see that a lot of different approaches simply won't work. That's where logic it's application is discovered.
Don't forget there are many different forms of logic nowadays, but the discovery of classical logic must have had countless implications. It's very useful to divide the propositions in this world into true or false propositions. That form of logic is crucial to understand the world around us.
But really, there are many different kinds of logic, like intuitionistic logic. They do not all cover truths in an absolute sense at all, more often a certain kind of justification is far more important. Having said that, many forms of logic itself are quite the opposite of absolute,
Cheers
