God and Logic

That's exactly what they once said. God is not material, it makes no sense in language, so let's bow down to statues.

But it doesn't work that way. Of course God is not subject to the laws of logic.
And in general. There is no need to talk about God. From modern physics we know that the universe itself is not subject to the laws of logic.

A cat can be in a state of logical contradiction, alive and dead, at the same time. And so on and so forth.

So if the universe is not subject to the laws of logic, then surely God is not subject to the laws of logic.

And we say Amen.

In this message, the number of mistakes per word exceeds all imagination. It is truly a real intellectual achievement (in the style of Noah with seven mistakes).

And what are the failures?

Rabbi, what does this actually mean about the statement of “there is a contradiction between knowledge and choice”, or that ”there cannot be a round triangle”? It only speaks about our perception of God and not about God himself? What is the meaning of this statement? If in any case we cannot say anything about God, then what does the statement of submission to logic mean?
Could it actually be that in terms of truth God knows and we just cannot perceive Him as knowing because of the logical contradiction?
I did not fully understand the Rabbi's intention.

Yosef, just make it clear to you that you are talking to him about the God of Ramada, and not about the God of our ancestors who is mentioned in the Torah.

Keep updating my brother.
I would love for you to stop responding here because I want the rabbi to answer my question and you are disrupting the discussion and because of you the rabbi will end up not responding to me because you are trolling him.

To the Supreme Judge, whose honor fills the whole earth.
It is impossible to be exempt from nothing. So I will list a few that immediately come to mind while writing:
1. I do not think that an immaterial God is perceived as meaningless in language. They did not believe that such an entity existed.
2. Meaningless in language and logical contradiction are not the same thing. A good measure in the shape of a triangle is not a contradiction, but it is meaningless in language.
3. The conclusion that an immaterial God does not exist does not require bowing down to statues. You can also remain an atheist.
4. The sentence “God is not subject to the laws of logic” is meaningless. At least in our language (and in my opinion in general). At the same time, it is also subject to the laws of logic because it is not subject to the law of contradiction (and is also subject to it).
5. I really liked the ”certain” The typical one that appeared before the meaningless sentence you wrote.
6. The claim “The universe is not subject to the laws of logic” is meaningless.
7. And of course the universe is completely subject to the laws of logic. If you bring a counterexample (and there is none) it won't help of course, because proof by negation is also based on logic.
8. Quantum theory is completely subject to the laws of logic. If it contained a contradiction, then according to the laws of logic, any conclusion you want could be drawn from it, meaning it would say nothing. A scientific theory cannot say nothing.
9. The interpretations of “quantum logic” are in themselves nonsense, but they also don't say that quantum theory is not subject to logic. After all, there are proofs by negation in quantum theory. Hilbert spaces on which quantum theory is built are based on conventional logic.
10. Schrödinger's cat is in a state of superposition. It is not true that it is both alive and dead. This is nonsense.
11. The line from the world to God is itself a logical rule. I am surprised that you use a logical rule to prove that logic is invalid and does not describe the reality you are talking about.

I have already written to you in the past that assertiveness is no substitute for arguments. You tend to declare instead of reason. Your own nick is flawed in this. It is worth listening and drawing lessons.

Yosef, I think you asked the same question today, right?
I'll come back to it. We can't talk about logical contradictions. To say that God is not subject to logic is a meaningless sentence. Therefore, there is no point in saying it and certainly not discussing it. Therefore, it is impossible to say the sentence “X is not subject to the laws of logic, but we cannot grasp it”. Our inability to grasp God stems from His abstraction and not from His containing contradictions (there is no such animal). On the contrary, I think we can certainly grasp Him. Not to see Him because He has no sight. Not to smell Him because He has no smell. But to understand that He created the world and that He has all the powers and brought us out of Egypt and gave us the Torah, there is no problem in understanding and grasping this.

Yes, I asked this question before. I'm just arguing with a friend about this issue and he brings up claims that there is a certain amount of “humanization” when you say that God is subject to logic and that in fact you should say that all perception is on our side, but on his side there can really be contradictions and therefore he could create a round triangle.
He brings up a parable like “Saying that our logic obligates God is like a person who is in quicksand and tries to get himself out by grabbing his own hair and pulling himself out”, meaning that when we are within a framework that does not touch the outside part, we cannot obligate what is outside that framework.
This parable is really powerful, so I turned to the rabbi to explain why this is not true.

Rabbi, there is some perception that just as morality is part of God's nature, so too is logic and mathematics not subjective. What does this mean? Do you accept this?

So I explained. The parable is very weak. See the third column on knowledge and choice regarding the laws of logic versus the laws of nature.

1. An immaterial God was brought up as an example from the logic of the past, and that you apply it and follow it today. When the idea is that for them, back then, God was immaterial, it was meaningless, because of their childish perception of the world.

2. “A good measure in the shape of a triangle” has meaning in language. But it does not have meaning in a worldview in which good measures do not have the properties of geometric shapes. For someone whose worldview measures have shapes, then it will have meaning. In other words, there is no problem of language here, but of worldview.
Therefore: the sentence “God is above logic” has meaning in language. Does it have meaning in a worldview? It depends on the worldview of the perceiver.

3. It was only as an example of the logic of your words, you decided that because ”there is no meaning” So we must invent a God who has meaning, one to whom the laws of logic apply. And this is invalid logic. If God is subject to the laws of logic, it follows that the God of logic precedes the God of Ramada. Therefore, one should not bow down to the God of Ramada, meaning that the God of Ramada is a statue. And this is the connection to the statues of the past. Invent something that is convenient to think of in the concepts of the past.

4. The God of our ancestors is certainly not subject to the laws of logic or to any law. Any God who is subject to any law was preceded by the God of that law, and therefore he is not the ancestor of anything. In other words, this is not our God, the Jews.

5. Of course, of course. Of course, God is not subject to the laws of logic and is not subject to anything. And you cannot force him until he says I will. Even though you think you did. In fact, you invented other gods.

6. “The universe is not subject to the laws of logic” has a meaning. As I explained above, there is a difference between meaning in language and meaning in worldview. In the worldview of modern physics, the universe behaves contrary to the laws of logic.

7. “Proofs” are a matter of humans and the way they understand things. The proofs that the universe is not subject to the laws of logic can be provided using logic and there is no problem with that. The proofs are for us.

8,9. Quantum theory is not the universe. It is a logical description of a universe that is not subject to the laws of logic. And if you are wondering about that, then as you noted above “meaningless in language and logical contradiction are not the same thing” and so exactly, a logical description of something that contains a logical contradiction is not the same thing and therefore can coexist without any contradiction between them.

10. It is not true that it is alive or dead. Rather, it is in a superposition. That is, a logical principle of the third law of non-existence has been violated here. Therefore, the quantum superposition state is contrary to the laws of logic.

11. This is not a question from the world to God, but rather about our ability to determine things about what is outside of us. With the world that we deluded ourselves until recently that is subject to the laws of logic and now it turns out that it is not subject at all, then it is a question that we cannot make such ridiculous claims about God.

9. What is meant by the superposition principle that it is neither this nor that?

When several different states of the same thing coexist in one state (a live cat, a dead cat). Then the combined state is called a superposition, and it is actually described as a distribution between the different states that coexist there. And this is something that is contrary to logic, and that cannot be illustrated and imagined. But this is what is in reality. Reality does not surpass all imagination, it simply does not care about it.

Can silence be interpreted as tacit consent?

Agree with what? You described the superposition roughly correctly, except that you stated that it is contrary to logic. If you mean the sections above, my words are valid. I really disagree, but I see no point in dwelling on it any further.

I didn't understand how you deal with the fact that superposition violates the law of the avoided third.

The third that is avoided states that either X or not X. But a state of superposition is a third state: neither X nor not X. It is like goodness being neither triangular nor not triangular. Triangularity is not in its semantic field. The same is true for the wave function. A superposition is a well-defined state, which can collapse into one of two different states. When it collapses it will be either a wave or not a wave (=particle). Before the collapse it is not in the semantic field of these two concepts.

Virtue is not many things (not triangular, not blue, not slow, and not a basket), it is very few things (those mental qualities that lead to intentions, feelings, desires, and actions).

To the question of whether virtue is triangular, the answer is no. And the explanation why not is, as you wrote, that triangularity is not in its semantic field.

But if there is an X that is a superposition of a triangle and a square, then to the question of whether X is a triangle, the answer would be 70% yes, 30% no, for example.

And the inevitable third law has been violated. That is quite clear.

The fact that the collapse corrects the violation of the third law is the point at which perception can understand the result. But not what was before the collapse.

In superposition, before collapsing into one of the states, what is the semantic field to which it does belong? “Third state: neither X nor not X”. But what is yes in the affirmative? Furthermore, with regard to the cat, there is a belonging to a semantic field of death/life even before the collapse. So “Third state: neither X nor not X” leads to a third state that is not death/life. What is it?

I meant to ask Rabbi Michi.

I think I explained. The cat is not in a third state but in a superposition of the first two states. We can say that in such a state it is not a cat but a wave function of a cat. It is a different object and the states of alive or dead are only certain appearances of it.
Ar formulation: Alive or dead are not mutually exclusive negations. Neither alive includes or dead or a superposition.

If suddenly not alive includes or dead or a superposition, then for all opposites there may be a third definition that is of course not perceived by the mind. After all, not dead also includes alive or a superposition. So is logic actually meaningless? Let's define something that is both a square and a triangle as something that is actually a superposition of a square and a triangle (apparently there is such a thing). Has anyone ever seen a superposition or can explain what it is?

1. I will just make a small comment because the last posak claims that the God of Rabbi Michi is not the God of Israel because he is subject to logic. The Rambam has already made this claim.
2. The Rambam wrote that we can grasp God. Does the Rambam contradict the Rambam's claim that everything is in the negative? I know that the Rambam does not see authority in the Rambam, these things simply seem logical to me.