“Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding.” – Ambrose Bierc.
What is logic? What is reason? Some of the greatest minds in human history have grappled with this topic, trying to define it. Trying to utilize it. Trying to explain it. At this point in time, it seems that people have developed a mostly satisfying answer to what it is. Polish mathematician, Alfred Tarski, provides a mostly satisfying description of it:
“Logic is justly considered the basis of all other sciences, even if only for the reason that in every argument we employ concepts taken from the field of logic, and that ever correct inference proceeds in accordance with its laws.”
In fact, this description is largely shared across the scientific community. Physicists, Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, both of whom many would place on their Mt. Rushmore of quantum physics, agree with the idea that logic underlies all of science. Not only is there agreement on the scope of logic, but there is also agreement on what is required for logic to exist. The main requirement for logic is that there be a mind behind it. Ambrose Bierce, an American author during the American Civil War, calls logic “the art of thinking and reasoning,” necessitating a thinker. Another logician, Paul Tomassi, describes logic as “the science of thought.” If this is the case, there is a need for a serious conversation about the origin of logic.
To determine the origin of logic, there first needs to be a consideration of what is dependent on logic. To do so, I would like to first appeal to an adage that most scientists would agree with, albeit with some complaints. As an experimental biologist, I often hear from my more chemically minded friends that “biology is just applied chemistry” (granted, I am also quick to remind my psychologist friends that they simply practice applied biology). While I think this line of reason is rather reductionist, there is a grain of truth to it, that if I am being completely honest, is much larger than a simple grain. All knowledge can be reduced to something. To showcase this, I would first like to appeal to history. As I mentioned, this line of thinking is inherently reductionist and certainly doesn’t capture all nuance within fields, but I think that every area of expertise is a lot more closely related to others than many think.
History is the study of change over time, covering all aspects of human society. (This is where my historian friends and family grab their pitchforks and prepare their guillotines.) History can be reduced to sociology, or the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society. Sociology is largely adjacent to anthropology, and both can, in turn, be reduced to psychology. This is where we get into what many stuck-up scientists (myself included) would view as the “hard sciences”—that is, the ones based purely on empirical evidence and follow the ever-developing “scientific method”.
As I mentioned, I am very quick to remind psychologists that they are practicing applied biology. This is evident in the study of neurotransmitters and brain plasticity and their effect on how we think. Biology may also be reduced further to chemistry. After all, biology is largely dependent on the chemical reactions happening within the cell. Chemistry is further reduced to physics. All chemical reactions are dependent on the natural laws of physics, particularly related to energy and entropy. Now, this is where many scientists tend to stop in their reduction, particularly of note, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Leon Lederman who authored The God Particle. While I don’t think they are content to stop at physics in their reductionism on a personal level, I think they begin to see the implications of continuing this progression and how it might conflict with their worldview.
So, if Tarski, Feynman, and Einstein are all correct in their declarations that logic is the foundation of science, there is a question that I think is begged to be answered here: how do you reduce from physics to logic? Well, this path is not one that is looked fondly upon by many people, as it involves our favorite of sciences: mathematics. Mathematics is a field that is largely defined by proof and consistency. Without proof, the mathematical subdivisions of geometry and trigonometry would not be so torturous or tedious. Without consistency, mathematics would cease to function. It is quite beautiful that physics—and in turn all of nature— is dependent on mathematics as, without this, researchers could not be sure of their findings.
Now there is some issue that many would take with the declaration that physics is entirely dependent on mathematics. After all, what is the seemingly random and infinitely confusing field of quantum physics? As we discover more about quantum mechanics, it is becoming painfully obvious that these particles and interactions are dependent and constrained by the mathematical issue of probability. Mathematician and Turing Award recipient, Richard Hamming says directly:
“Probability plays a central role in many fields, from quantum mechanics to information theory, and even older fields use probability now that the presence of ‘noise’ is officially admitted.”
So, if quantum physics is still reliant on probability to function, then we still come to the node that is mathematics at the current base of our knowledge tree. But once again, we’re left unsatisfied with the bridge between math and logic. Here, I believe my claim may inspire many groans of exasperation from scientists and cheers of celebration from philosophers, but math can be reduced to philosophy. After all, philosophy is the art of reason, and the application of logic, to identify and evaluate “universals,” or rather, concepts and ideas that cannot be tested and confirmed through empirical analysis. In fact, I think we see the groundwork for philosophy at play in the field of mathematics interested in fractals.
Take for instance the Mandelbrot set. This set of numbers is constrained by the equation:
Zn2+c = Zn+1
In which Z does not increase to infinity. This fractal is seen nowhere in nature yet is still able to generate beautiful geometric patterns that repeat into infinity. Therefore, there is some immaterial aspect of mathematics that must be explained by an immaterial foundation. That foundation is, at the very least, adjacent to philosophy. Finally, from philosophy, we can make the final descent into logic.
This reduction is quite a bit to process, but I think that once we reach the bedrock foundation on which this universe is built, we start to see not only the need for a Creator but the beauty of the Creator’s mind as well. To illustrate the need for a Creator, we can start this next logical progression in math. If the universe relies on math to begin, to continue, and eventually to end, then the universe relies on and is constrained by a nebulous force called Logic. Without Logic, mathematical formulas would be inconsistent and unprovable, making it impossible to study physics and all its derivatives. If this is the case, I have some horrible news for myself and many of my friends, who have devoted our lives to science. This is that, without Logic, our discoveries, our pursuits, and our careers are entirely futile. Moreso, I have horrible news for the entirety of the universe. Without Logic, we, and the entire natural realm, cease to exist.
Seeing as we continue to exist and continue to put great effort and respect into scientific pursuits, I think the logical conclusion is that Logic must exist. Which brings us to the question: where did Logic originate from? To identify this origin, we can throw out everything past physics and start there. The beginning of everything material originated from physics, but the laws of physics are purely mathematical. These laws must have existed before the genesis of the universe, regardless of what cosmological model you would like to subscribe to. Therefore, mathematics must exist outside of the material and pre-date the origin of the universe. Now if math is simply applied logic, then logic itself must exist outside of the material and pre-date the origin of the universe.
If Logic is the science of thought, there must be a “Thinker” behind it. This “Thinker” must exist outside of the material, must pre-date the origin of the universe, must be eternally consistent, and must be intelligent to the point where the Thinker can account for all of the possibilities and contingencies that this universe has. Physicist Max Planck says it in a more condensed manner: “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force…” We must assume behind this force “the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind.” Therefore, we are tasked with identifying this “Thinker”.
Many religions have put forward an argument for what they believe this “Thinker” to be. However, many fall short of fully accounting for what is required for His nature. As mentioned, the “Thinker” needs to be eternal, omniscient, transcendent, immanent, omnipotent, and consistent. There is only one set of religions that can fully account for these attributes: Abrahamic religions and their offshoots. It is only in these religions that we see a Creator that is eternal, all-powerful, and transcendent while still interacting with the universe He created, all-knowing, and entirely consistent. God is Truth, and as such, is a logical being, and only from a logical being can Logic be born.
We are all born with an innate curiosity about the Creator. As children, we suspect that there is more to the universe than just the material. We are born with an intuition that there is Truth and that Truth can be known. As we grow, we begin to look towards logic and reason for reassurance that Truth exists. If logic is the foundation of the material, the logical conclusion must be that there is a Mind propagating that logic and giving it life. In the words of Christian philosopher, scientist, and apologist Blaise Pascal, “when intuition and logic agree, you are always right.” I think it’s time we stop ignoring the elephant in the room and denigrating philosophy and logic for not being empirical, hard sciences. We should admit that all our knowledge is entirely dependent on the consistency of these two fields. Doing so leaves little choice but to recognize that existence is much more than material, and to devote ourselves to understanding and knowing who Truth is.
Joshua Hack 10-24-22
BS Molecular & Cellular Biology, BA Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, President University of Arizona Ratio Christi
