|
The druid said: “Contact Is Logic” A thought experiment on what
“logic” is, once we strip away everything we merely do
with it By Bodhangkur 1) The problem: “logic” is overburdened In
ordinary and philosophical usage, logic is made to carry too much: ·
A discipline (formal proof systems,
axioms, calculi) ·
A norm (how one ought to
reason) ·
A metaphysical feature (the
world is “logical”) ·
A semantic theory (truth,
reference, validity) ·
A psychological habit (how
humans in fact infer) The
thought experiment begins by refusing to grant any of these. Not because they
are false, but because they are derivative. The aim is to recover a
definition of logic that does not already assume:
language, propositions, truth-values, observers-as-persons, or timeless
rules. So we ask: what is the minimal
phenomenon to which the word logic could still refer? 2) First reduction: from “rules” to “doing” A
classical instinct says: logic is a set of rules (e.g., non-contradiction,
excluded middle, syllogistic forms). But a rule is already an abstraction: it
presupposes repeatability, comparison, and a system that can treat two
occasions as “the same form.” So we reduce again: perhaps
logic is not a rule but a doing—a way happenings happen. But then
a second step bites: doing, at the base, is not continuous. It occurs in
discrete occurrences—events, interactions, contacts. “Doing” is granular. Thus we arrive at the pivotal
question: If
everything that happens, happens as discrete contacts, is logic already
present in a single contact? 3) The “persistence” dispute: is logic pattern, or is
logic occurrence? A
tempting answer is: logic requires persistence—some
repeatable behaviour, some stability across time. Under that view: ·
one event is mere occurrence, ·
two comparable events make a pattern, ·
repeated pattern yields “rule-like” behaviour, ·
logic appears as the stabilised behaviour. But then
the counter-argument (your decisive correction)
lands: There is
no such thing as persistence in itself. This is
not a minor semantic quibble. It collapses a hidden assumption. “Persistence”
is not a primitive feature of reality; it is a trace-binding operation
performed by any system that retains and compares. So if “persistence” is not
fundamental, then logic cannot require persistence as a metaphysical
ingredient. At most, persistence is a derived description of what
trace-binding does. That
forces the next reduction: ·
If persistence is not basic, ·
and contact is basic, ·
then logic must be definable at the level of
contact itself. 4) The central claim: Contact as such is logic Finn
proposed the collapse-formula: “Contact (touch) as such
is logic.” To accept
this, we must purge the word logic of its later accretions (truth,
inference, validity) and keep only what a single contact can genuinely
supply. What does
one contact supply? 1. Difference:
something happened rather than nothing. 2. Selection: one
outcome occurred rather than its alternatives. 3. Determinacy: the
event is this event (not a mere indistinct blur). 4. Boundary: a
contact is a cut—an indivisible “there” in place of “not-there.” If you
define logic at bedrock, logic becomes: the
occurrence of difference (the fact of distinction happening). No propositions
are needed. No language is needed. Not even a conscious observer is needed. A
contact is already an act of distinction in the world: a state is resolved
into an occurrence. Under
this definition, logic is not “a system of rules.” Logic is the primitive
fact that there is an event at all—and that an event is not nothing. 5) Avoiding the “two truths” trap At this
point, one might accuse the view of smuggling in a two-level scheme: ·
“ultimate” contacts (raw reality), ·
“conventional” logic (human invention). But the
experiment’s conclusion does not require a metaphysical split. It requires
only a functional distinction: ·
Base logic: contact itself (difference
occurring). ·
Derived logics: structured ways some systems
compress and manage many contacts. There
aren’t two worlds. There is one world of contacts, plus the fact that some
contacts occur inside systems that bind traces of other contacts. When
a system binds traces, it generates stable compressions; those compressions
are what later get named “laws,” “rules,” and “logic systems.” So “logic
is invented” does not mean “logic is unreal.” It means: Formal
logic is a secondary behaviour—a particular kind of contact-processing
performed by certain evolved or engineered systems. Just as
digestion is not “in food” but is real as an organism’s operation, so formal
logic is not “in contact” but is real as an operation performed upon
contact-traces. 6) How Aristotelian and mathematical logics arise (as
survival-expedient local iterations) Once base
logic is “difference occurring,” the plurality of logics becomes easy to
explain without mysticism. Formal
logics are local iterations because different systems
must cope with different regimes of contact: ·
scarce vs abundant events, ·
slow vs fast environments, ·
high-noise vs low-noise signals, ·
social negotiation vs solitary prediction, ·
finite memory vs expandable inscription. A logic
is then a compression strategy—a way to reduce the infinite granularity
of contact into manageable invariants. 6.1 Aristotelian logic as an identity-management
compression Aristotelian
logic (categories, predication, syllogism) assumes durable “things” and
stable properties. In our reduced terms, it is a device for: ·
binding many contacts into objects
(“substances”), ·
binding many variations into predicates
(“is F”), ·
binding object/predicate regularities into valid
transitions (syllogisms). It is
superb for mid-scale human survival: tool-use, planning, argument,
accountability. It packages contact streams into stable nouns and stable
“is”-relations. 6.2 Mathematical logic as a formalised trace-engine Mathematical
and symbolic logics take a further step: they build external memory
(inscription) so that trace-binding is no longer limited by biological
recall. Proof becomes: ·
a regulated method for preserving and
transforming traces, ·
with explicit rules ensuring reproducible
transformations. This is
not “closer to ultimate reality” by default. It is a stronger trace
apparatus. It excels where the cost of error is high and where long
chains of inference must remain stable across generations. In this
frame, mathematics is a civilisation-scale adaptation: a way to stabilise the
outcomes of contact-compression so they can be shared, audited, and extended. 7) What “truth” becomes under the contact definition If
contact is base logic, then “truth” cannot be primordial. Truth is a label
applied to certain compressions when they succeed across many contacts. ·
A statement is “true” if it is a compression that
reliably anticipates or coordinates future contacts. ·
A proof is “valid” if the trace-transformations
preserve constraints accepted within that compression system. ·
A contradiction is not a metaphysical horror; it
is a sign that a compression is leaking—failing to bind contacts coherently
under the chosen constraints. Truth and
validity become operational badges for compressions that work. 8) The crucial inversion: rules do not govern contacts;
rules are fossils of contact-management Classically,
we speak as if the world “obeys logic.” The thought experiment inverts that: 1. contacts
happen (difference occurs), 2. trace-binding
systems compress contacts, 3. stable
compressions get codified, 4. codifications
are called “logic” in the formal sense, 5. we then
project that codification back onto reality and say reality “obeys” it. On this
view, rules are not the engines of logic; rules are the sediment left
by successful compressions. 9) A precise conclusion set The
experiment yields several clean conclusions. 1. Base
definition 2. Derived
definition 3. Plurality 4. No
metaphysical dualism required 5. Truth and
validity are downstream 10) The final compressed formula Finn’s concluding
synthesis can be stated with maximal economy: “Contact (alone) is logic.” Everything
else we customarily call “logic” is what certain contact-binders (animals,
cultures, machines) do when they cannot afford to treat each contact as
wholly new. Without contact, nothing happens. No touch, no event. |