There is a familiar story in philosophy and computer science: formal logic is absolute, universal, and unassailable—until, at certain boundaries, it breaks down. Paradoxes emerge. Inference collapses. Systems become inconsistent or incomplete. Classical reasoning appears to fail.
The usual responses are predictable. Either reality is declared mysterious, or logic is defended as incomplete, awaiting a richer system yet to be discovered. Both assume implicitly that logic should, in principle, account for all relational structure.
This series begins with a different question entirely:
What must relation be like for formal logic to succeed at all?
And, by inversion:
What does the breakdown of logic actually reveal about relation itself?
Logic as a measure of relational consistency
Logic is often described as the science of valid inference: a system for tracking the necessary consequences of statements, propositions, or conditions. From a relational-ontological perspective, we can say more precisely: logic presupposes that relations among statements, and the entities they describe, can be rendered consistent and discrete enough to be manipulated formally.
Where these presuppositions fail, logic does not so much break as confront the limits of the structural forms it requires. Logical paradoxes, inconsistencies, and incompleteness are not signs that reality has become irrational—they are diagnostic: they signal where relational reality refuses to stabilise under the assumptions logic requires.
Instantiation, cuts, and logical traction
Formal inference presupposes a form of cut similar to what mathematics presupposes: propositions and relations are instantiated as discrete entities, capable of being recombined under defined rules. Logic operates successfully only where:
-
propositions can be consistently instantiated and identified,
-
the relations among them can be held stable,
-
the application of inference rules does not alter the identity or constitution of the propositions themselves.
Where these conditions fail—where propositions blur, relations mutate with construal, or identities cannot be held—logical systems encounter paradoxes or incompleteness. Relation persists, but the structural scaffolding required for formal inference cannot.
Breakdown without absence
Classical breakdowns in logic—liar paradoxes, Gödelian incompleteness, inconsistent or undecidable systems—do not imply the absence of relation. Rather, they indicate a mismatch between the relational richness of reality and the structural assumptions logic enforces. Logic is a formal lens: it works spectacularly where its assumptions are satisfied, and nowhere else.
Logic, like mathematics, is local. Its domain is defined not by reality itself, but by the achievement of a structural cut through relation that can be consistently manipulated.
What this series will argue
The claim developed across this series is simple but profound:
Logical breakdowns reveal not the irrationality of reality, but the boundaries of structural capture. Logic presupposes stability, separability, and invariance of propositions; where these presuppositions cannot be sustained, formal inference reaches its limits.
In the posts that follow, we will examine these presuppositions in detail, exploring how stability, separability, and invariance shape the space of the logically possible, and how relation persists even where logic cannot fully formalise it. We will end by articulating the master distinction that underlies all these limits: the distinction between relation and structure.
Logic, extraordinary as it is, is a mode of access, not the totality of relational reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment