>>8007144
You're feeble-minded. Start over

"Whereof we cannot speak, we must be silent."

Did you even read the fucking Tractatus?

>>8007144
>the purely logical world that Ludwig Von Witggenstein claims to exist?
He never claimed the world is purely logical.
Carnap did.

File: its your choice.png (641 KB, 774x2270) Image search: [Google]

641 KB, 774x2270

A few years ago I asked a similar question on StackExchange philosophy

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2512/does-wittgensteins-tractatus-establish-serious-bounds-for-discussions-of-the-su

>It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic.-The truth is that we could not say what an 'illogical' world would look like

For a world to be illogical wouldn't it simply have to defy the laws of nature? These events are well recorded and happen constantly

>>8007178
>For a world to be illogical wouldn't it simply have to defy the laws of nature? These events are well recorded and happen constantly
There's a whole load of baggage - and this baggage may well be metaphysical or not or ideological or not or something else of that ilk - that you have to sort through before you can even begin to answer that question.

To me I think quite a nice easy road to go down would be the "laws of nature" part. Laws of nature are established by science (more or less), and probably the way science is most typically presented now is as a way of "speaking true", that is it doesn't establish universal facts as such, simply a long line of falsifiable ideas of how the world works. Within this line of thinking, if God defied these "laws of nature", it would simply give a data point in which these laws were falsified. If we assume that it is beyond doubt that these laws are falsified one would simply have to find a new way of talking about the universe and so new laws would be formed. Science changes to accommodate the unknown.

In some ways it all boils down to tautologies so thanks Witt

>>8007178
What violates the laws of nature? Give one example

Its literally not possible

>>8007166

Tractatus Wittgenstein can easily be read as saying this. From the Tractatus:

1 The world is all that is the case.

1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.

2 What is the case--a fact--is the existence of states of affairs.

2.01 A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things).

2.0124 If all objects are given, then at the same time all possible states of affairs are also given.

3 A logical picture of facts is a thought.

3.1 In a proposition a thought finds an expression that can be perceived by the senses.

3.2 In a proposition a thought can be expressed in such a way that elements of the propositional sign correspond to the objects of the thought.

To summarize this reasoning:

Wittgenstein begins by defining "the world" as "all that is the case." In other words, he is not making an empirical claim, but proposing a definition. "Things" that are not susceptible to the analysis of correspondence espoused by proposition 3.2 are simply not things we can speak of. Hence "the world" as Wittgenstein speaks of it is, in fact, purely logical. If a thing weren't logical, we couldn't include it in "the world," because "the world" only includes things for which there can be demonstrated a correspondence between logical form and perception. This view is, I think, best forwarded and elaborated by AJ Ayer, although Wittgenstein later changed his mind completely by the Philosophical Investigations.

>>8007178
>For a world to be illogical wouldn't it simply have to defy the laws of nature?
No. You are confused.

>>8007144
there can be no such thing as miracles
if something happens, no matter how out of the ordinary, it was always in the cards

>>8007263
You may notice that Witty is talking about a world made up of facts, not the "real world" but like what we can say about the real world. I think that other anon is talking about the real world/world of things.