What is a "material concept"? It sounds like a contradiction in terms.
In the closed, accidental conglomeration of matter in motion, otherwise know as the universe, what is your foundation for any of these non-material "abstractions", "pretend-reality axioms", ("axioms" which further presuppose the existence of "assumptions" and "propositions") ? No one can see or touch any of these things you're referring to .
The ultimate proof of logic is in the material world from which it comes. Thus, if A=B, and B=C, then A=C must have some basis in reality, the symbols representing real things. Otherwise, the equations are meaningless.
Logic and the proof of logic are the epiphenomenon of non-rational, materialistic chemical reactions? Chemical reactions occur whenever bonds are formed or broken between molecules. Certain atoms combine with which other atoms electromagnetically based on the properties of their electron shells. How can chemical reactions account for non-material laws? If they do, why should electro/chemical reactions in a brain extend beyond an individual brain? If logic comes from the material world then it is not timeless, universal, and unchanging. Is logic absolute or is it merely conventional? If it is merely conventional, rational debate would be impossible because there could be as many standards as there are people. Alternatively, in an accidental materialistic universe, why would there be universal, unchanging standards?”
I would like to know your foundation - in an accidental, materialistic universe - for all these non-material, accidental by-products of matter in motion, which you refer to as the laws of logic.
Cordially,
That a symbol such as A, B, C stand for something real, material. Apples, oranges, eggs, you name it. If they don't then the whole A=B, B=C, A=C is meaningless.
In the closed, accidental conglomeration of matter in motion, otherwise know as the universe, what is your foundation for any of these non-material "abstractions"...No one can see or touch any of these things you're referring to .
The foundation is the definition of what A stands for, rather than writing it out; it's a shorthand. Thus instead of redundant long-hand (descirptivie) exposition we use a short-hand (gformula) method to write out the relationship to a conclusion that is dem onstrably provable.
How can chemical reactions account for non-material laws?
What non-material laws?
If logic comes from the material world then it is not timeless, universal, and unchanging. Is logic absolute or is it merely conventional?
Conventional, of course. Made to order of our physical and chemical makeup. For instanc,e ti si perfectly "logical" that chicken wire fence is atrue barrier for a man, but not for a mouse. The atoms of your house are like a football field for a neutrino top fly through. What is 'logical' to us is determined by our size, shape, that is our material makeup. Sou our logic is not trasncedental but accidental to our size and shape, and "wiring".
If it is merely conventional, rational debate would be impossible because there could be as many standards as there are people
That just about describes the Protestant community, doesn't it? :)