Hi spunkets! Do I correctly understand you to say that logic is but a summarized representation of human observations of phenomena? Might the reverse be the actual case -- that maybe reality is a representation of the logic?
Science seems to be biased in favor of the notion that the universe is understandable; and it is understandable because it is logical. Therefore, logic is something that precedes scientific investigation, not something a scientist "discovers" as he goes along. Without the expectation that the Universe has a logical structure, science would have nothing to do....
In any case, we must not lose sight of the simple fact that a representation is not the same thing as that of which it is the representation. Science can model the world down to a nonce -- and given enough time and imagination, it may well do so if the human race doesn't destroy itself first -- and still the world would be beyond its grasp, objectively speaking. Subjectively speaking, we experience it most directly, even now and all the time, consciously or unconsciously.
Science is supposed to be about "objectivity." And yet it's seemingly virtually impossible to be perfectly "objective" about something that also includes our subjectivity as its constituent. Plus I have noticed that, for all of, say, neo-Darwinism's claim to objectivity, there's a good deal of subjectivity loaded into its presuppositions.
Just some musings on a difficult theme. Thank you so much for your thoughtful essay/post, spunkets!
I'm not sure whether that's a bias, or a conclusion. In any event, based on experience, it's certainly the way to bet.
No. That is science. Logic is a process of rational thinking.
"Might the reverse be the actual case -- that maybe reality is a representation of the logic?"
The word logic has been replaced by science. The answer is no. It's impossible for the observer's nonphysical thoughts to support the observer.
I think what you wanted to pose is: Could the physical world be the result of the act of a rational thinker. The answer is yes. If the rational thinker exists in this world physically, then science can know him. If not, all that can be observed is his nonphysical spirit.
Now there's only one rational Person that ever claimed to be that rational thinker. What He said relavent to this discussion is, Matthew 12:39
He answered, ""A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
The physics of this world is the cherubim:
Genesis 3:24
After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
That's what the rational Thinker says. Science is open for everyone to see. So is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit though, does not wish to be seen by science. He came here to tell us that. He came here to teach.
His original gift was the physical life that supports the same sentience and rational capacities He has. We are free to develope our non physical spirit, supported by that physical life. He came to teach. Did He teach physics? No. He taught about Himself, His Spirit. His Spirit is what needs to be recognized and known. That's not something most folks focus on. Instead they play pseudoscientists and come up with things like the set of Canon from the Council of Orange. Their very first, Canon 1, refutes the Spirit Himself. See all of John 9.
The observables are given in the 4 Gospels. They're not going to be found in science.