That’s exactly what they used to say once. “God is non-physical” is meaningless in language, so come on, let’s bow down to statues.

But that’s not how it works. Of course God is not subject to the laws of logic.
And in general, there’s no need at all 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 on.

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

And let us say amen.

In this message, the number of fallacies per word surpasses all imagination. It really is quite an intellectual achievement (in the style of “Noah in seven mistakes”).

And what are the fallacies?

Rabbi, what does this actually mean for statements like “there is a contradiction between foreknowledge and free choice,” or that “there cannot be a round triangle”? Is that speaking only about our conception of God and not about God Himself? What is the meaning of this statement? If in any case we can’t say anything about God, then what is the claim that He is subject to logic supposed to mean?
Could it in fact be that in truth God knows, and we simply cannot grasp Him as knowing because of the logical contradiction?
I didn’t fully understand what the Rabbi meant.

Yosef, just so it’s clear to you, you’re talking to him about the god of Ramda, not about the God of our forefathers mentioned in the Torah.

Keep us updated, bro.
I’d appreciate it if you’d stop commenting here, because I want the Rabbi to answer my question, and you’re disrupting the discussion, and because of you the Rabbi will end up not replying to me since you’re trolling him.

To our master the decisor, whose glory fills the whole earth.
One cannot leave completely empty-handed, so I’ll list a few of them that occur to me immediately as I write:
1. I don’t think “God is non-physical” was perceived as meaningless in language. They simply didn’t believe such an entity existed.
2. “Meaningless in language” and “logically contradictory” are not the same thing. “A good character trait in the shape of a triangle” is not a contradiction, but it is meaningless in language.
3. The conclusion that a non-physical God does not exist does not require bowing to statues. One 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 altogether). After all, at the same time He is also subject to the laws of logic, because He is not subject to the law of non-contradiction (and is also subject to it).
5. I very much liked the typical “of course” 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), that of course won’t help, since proof by contradiction also rests 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 one could derive from it any conclusion one wanted; that is, it would say nothing at all. A scientific theory cannot say nothing.
9. The interpretations of “quantum logic” are nonsense in themselves, but even they do not say that quantum theory is not subject to logic. After all, there are proofs by contradiction in quantum mechanics. Hilbert spaces, on which quantum theory is built, are based on standard logic.
10. Schrödinger’s cat is in a state of superposition. It is not true that it is both alive and dead. That is nonsense.
11. The a fortiori argument from the world to God is itself a logical rule. It amazes me that you use a logical rule to prove that logic is not valid and does not describe the reality you are talking about.

I already wrote to you before that assertiveness is not a substitute for arguments. You tend to make declarations instead of offering reasoning. Your very username suffers from that. It would be worthwhile to listen and learn the lesson.

Yosef, I think you already asked this same question today, didn’t you?
I’ll say it again. We cannot speak about logical contradictions. To say that God is not subject to logic is a meaningless sentence. Therefore there is no point in uttering it, and certainly not in discussing it. Therefore one cannot say the sentence “X is not subject to the laws of logic, but we simply cannot grasp it.” Our inability to grasp God stems from His abstractness, not from His containing contradictions (there is no such thing). Besides, I think we definitely can grasp Him. Not see Him, because He has no appearance. Not smell Him, because He has no smell. But to understand that He created the world, that He possesses all powers, took us out of Egypt, and gave the Torah—there is no problem understanding and grasping that.

Yes, I already asked this question. I’m just in an argument with a friend about this issue, and he brings claims that there is a certain degree of “anthropomorphism” when one says that God is subject to logic, and that really one should say that the whole conception is only from our side, but from His side there really could be contradictions, and therefore it could be that He creates a round triangle.
He gives an analogy like this: “to say that our logic obligates God is like a person stuck in quicksand trying to pull himself out by grabbing his own hair and pulling upward,” meaning that when we are inside a framework that does not touch what is outside it, we cannot impose anything on what is outside that framework.
That analogy really is powerful, so I turned to the Rabbi to explain why it is not correct.

Rabbi, is there some view according to which just as morality is part of God’s nature, so too logic and mathematics, which are not subjective, are also part of His nature? What does that mean? Do you accept that?

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

1. “God is non-physical” was brought as an example from the reasoning of earlier times, and you apply it and follow it today. The idea is that for them, back then, “God is non-physical” was meaningless because of their childish conception of the world.

2. “A good character trait in the shape of a triangle” does have meaning in language. But it has no meaning within a worldview in which good traits do not have properties of geometric shapes. For someone whose worldview includes traits having shapes, it would have meaning. In other words, the problem here is not language but worldview.
And therefore: the sentence “God is above logic” does have meaning in language. Does it have meaning within a worldview? That depends on the worldview of the one perceiving.

3. That was only an example of the logic of your argument: you decided that because something has “no meaning,” one should invent a god that does have meaning, one to whom the laws of logic apply. And that is faulty reasoning. If God is subject to the laws of logic, it follows that the god of logic precedes the god of Ramda. And therefore one should not worship the god of Ramda; in other words, the god of Ramda is an idol. And that is the connection to the statues of old. They invented something that was convenient to think about in the terms of their time.

4. The God of our forefathers is certainly not subject to the laws of logic, nor to any law. Any god who is subject to any law whatsoever is preceded by the god of that law, and therefore he is not primordial relative to everything. In other words, that is not our God as Jews.

5. Absolutely. Of course God is not subject to the laws of logic and not subject to anything. And you, too, cannot coerce Him until He says “I want to.” Even though it seems to you that you have done so. In practice, you have invented other gods.

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

7. “Proofs” are a matter of human beings and the way they understand things. The proofs that the universe is not subject to the laws of logic can be brought 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 that surprises you, then just as you remarked above that “meaningless in language” and “logically contradictory” are not the same thing, exactly so a logical description of a thing that contains a logical contradiction is not the same thing, and therefore the two can coexist without any contradiction between them.

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

11. This is not an a fortiori argument from the world to God, but rather an a fortiori argument about our ability to determine things about what lies outside us. If, regarding the world, we deluded ourselves until not long ago that it was subject to the laws of logic, and now it turns out that it is not subject to them at all, then all the more so we cannot make such ridiculous claims about God.

9. What does the principle of superposition mean, that it is neither this nor that?

When several different states of the same thing coexist together (a live cat, a dead cat). Then the combined state is called superposition, and it is basically described as a distribution among the different states that coexist there. And this is something contrary to reason, impossible to illustrate and imagine. But that is what exists in reality. Reality is not beyond all imagination; it simply doesn’t care about it.

Can the silence be interpreted as tacit agreement?

Agreement to what? You described superposition approximately correctly, except that you determined that it is contrary to logic. If you mean the points above, my words stand. I definitely do not agree, but I see no point in chewing this over any further.

I didn’t understand how you deal with the fact that superposition violates the law of the excluded middle.

The excluded middle states that either X or not-X. But a state of superposition is a third state: neither X nor not-X. It is like saying that a good character trait is neither triangular nor not triangular. Triangularity is not in its semantic field. The same is true of the wave function. Superposition is a well-defined state that can collapse into one of two different states. When it collapses, it will be either a wave or not a wave (= a particle). Before the collapse, it is not in the semantic field of those two concepts.

A good character trait is not many things (it is 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 whether a good character trait is triangular, the answer is no. And the explanation why not is as you wrote: 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 whether X is a triangle, the answer would be 70% yes, 30% no, for example.

And the law of the excluded middle has been violated. That is quite clear.

The fact that collapse corrects the violation of the excluded middle is precisely the point at which perception can understand the result. But not what existed before the collapse.

In superposition, before collapse into one of the states, what is that semantic field to which it does belong? “A third state: neither X nor not-X.” But what is it positively? And further, with regard to the cat there is membership in the semantic field of death/life even before collapse. If so, “a third state: neither X nor not-X” leads to a third state that is neither death nor 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. One can say that in such a state it is not a cat but a cat wave function. That is a different entity, and the states of alive or dead are only certain manifestations of it.
A different formulation: alive or dead are not mutually exclusive negations of each other. Not alive includes either dead or superposition.

If suddenly “not alive” includes either dead or superposition, then for every pair of opposites there may be some such third definition, which of course is not graspable by reason. After all, “not dead” also includes either alive or superposition. So is logic itself basically meaningless too? We can define something that is both square and triangle as something that is actually a superposition of square and triangle (apparently there is such a thing). Has anyone ever seen a superposition or can anyone explain what it is?

1. I’ll just note one small thing, because The Last Decisor claims that Rabbi Michi’s God is not the God of Israel because He is subject to logic: Maimonides already made that claim.
2. The Rabbi wrote that we can grasp God. Is the Rabbi contradicting Maimonides’ claim that everything is by way of negation? I know the Rabbi does not regard Maimonides as authoritative, but these just seem to me like reasonable things.