# The Logic of ME



## lilhobo (Jan 13, 2002)

this is the sort mental [email protected] thats getting you into trouble Harad....Its a fantasy work of literature so there is no logic comparison possible...

you can argue that logic should be self contained within a world. eg if elves can walk on water then he should be light enough to walk on snow.....

but then you have Tom bombadil, as an JRR anomaly that JRR was prooud of.....

tis myth after all, enjoy it in wonder


----------



## Grond (Jan 14, 2002)

I personally find Middle-earth to be an extremely logical place with the exception of Tom as pointed out by lilhobo. I find it even more so because of the relationship of the Spiritual world to that of the Physical world. My reasons that most common Earth-like logic applies is as follows: 

Normal rules of physics apply on Middle-earth. ie. one cannot fly without wings. Some extra physical laws apply. ie. extra skills that are not easily explained by the reader's understanding of science, etc. I have often wondered if there are not logical explanations for most of these things as well. Gandalf carries the Elven Ring of Fire. Isn't that a "logical" explanation as to why he is so good with fire and fireworks. 

It appears that normal meteorlogical laws apply. The weather is variable for the most part with the exception of some "divine" intervention by powers that are not of the Physical world. In fact, all the Physical laws of Science and the like appear to be operating in a logical manner except when the very real "Spiritual World" intervenes. (And remember that Sauron is not of ME.)

And now I get to the crux of the main difference between ME and our world. Unfortunately my take is one of theology and many will likely not appreciate this opinion but............Logic is probably even more prevelant on ME than on our Earth. That is because there is a clear and defined diety that is a FACT and not a matter of FAITH. Main characters (Galadriel and Glorfindel) in this world have actually been to heaven (Aman) and visited with the Dieties of the Spiritual Worlds. They are portrayed as accessible in a physical way and Spiritual matters are a matter of Fact. Elrond sees his father Earendil every night in the sky. There is a knowledge that Manwe and Varda and Ulmo and Tulkas and Aule and Yavanna are all "real". It is not a matter of Faith. 

Logic is hard to equate with religion. Logic would say that if you can't see, feel, hear, taste or smell something, it is not logical that it exists. In LotR, we know that the Vala and the Maia and Eru Himself, exist. They are real. To me that is the ultimate in logic. I can see Sauron or Melkor and will follow him because I think he has dominion over Middle-earth or I have conversed with Varda and choose to follow the leadership of Good. To me, the absence of Religion = the ultimate in Logic.

BTW, I am not an athiest. I have faith that God does exist and that there is a master plan in all of our world. And I'm absolutely, postively sure of this...... through Faith.


----------



## lilhobo (Jan 14, 2002)

methinks you would prefer mass debating though 

you will go blind nevertheless,  heck you are as one-eyed as a pop-eye the sailor

logically earthwise, there are no elves, logically earthwise, you do GOOD in life to get to a better place thereafter

Also there is also NO good or bad in ME, its all a matter of survival....the orcs aint bad! the others are just trying to kill them


----------



## Grond (Jan 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Harad _
> *Grond:
> 1) Its an interesting point that mythology, and LOTR probably qualifies, removes some of the place for faith. At least faith in gods. It does not remove faith with regards to the intervention of gods, but just with regards to the existence of gods.
> 
> ...


1) It seems to me that many an Elf and even our dear Frodo called upon the name of Elbereth when faced with dire need. To my knowledge, she never came to help. So, maybe their faith was poorly placed. It appears that ME only gets "divine" help at extraordinary need. After the end of the first age, they help not at all except for the Istari which are not able to act directly against Sauron. So faith seems to be unnecessary on the side of Good. On the side of evil, Faith must have been paramount. Or was it fear? Something kept the Orcs, Wargs, Variags, Easterners, etc. in line with Sauron. It is apparent from the later texts that the Easterners worshiped Melkor..... so some of their perception may have been faith induced.

2) Your comment confuses me. How can we (non-authors) demand the characters act this way or that way. The author wrote the story as it is. In some instances, the explanation for their actions is beyond us. Whether the author wrote it to fit the story or whether he saw things in a different way, we'll never know. I will say that I find in most cases the characters act extremely logical. You can shoot your Amon Hen example here, in which I agree Frodo's logic is questionable or your Gandalf at Moria example, in which I feel Gandalf behaved logically with the information and determinations he had at the time. 

3) I thought I cited examples of logical behavior of both the world and the people in my previous post. If not, I will give you the ultimate logic. Good people of a world are presented with a situation where they have a terrible weapon that, if used, will cause massive evil to be released. It will defeat their foe but at the cost of their own innate goodness. Their choices are few. Keep it and not use it and risk ultimately being overrun. Keep it and use it and face certain evil in the long run. Through it away and risk it being found by good or evil and being used, which would ultimately lead to ultimate evil. Or, seek to unmake it, risking the very existence of goodness on the world. They chose the last option which was the only logical one.

4) Gandalf uses incantations to put a shutting spell on the door in Moria. He uses a fire spell to illuminate his staff. There were many other incantations used that I don't recall. Having said that, using magic does not make something illogical. It simply adds another element for which logic must be applied and interpreted. ie. it is very logical that if you're in the dark and know a fire spell, you would use it to provide you with light.


----------



## Greymantle (Jan 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Harad _
> *
> 1. Of course Elbereth came to Sam's aid when is Shelob's lair. Did you read the book?
> *



I think most people would agree that this is from any evil creature's innate aversion, hatred and fear of the name of Elbereth (and for that matter anything of Aman, including the Eldar). She did not personally come to Sam's aid.


----------



## Walter (Jan 16, 2002)

> If A implies B,
> then not-B implies not-A
> 
> e.g. A = [Character XY in ME] is wearing the One Ring
> ...


 Is that so? As already mentioned, there are some examples evident, that _"A implies B"_ is not generally applicable - like in the case of Tom Bombadil and Sauron. Also we have _"B implies not-A"_ in the case of the ringwraiths that are invisible, but don't wear the One ring

Could it be, the theory does have some "weak spots"? Or is it just "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in Action"? Maybe we need to invent "Quantum logics" for ME?


----------



## Grond (Jan 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Harad _
> *..."Certainly Physics (perhaps including Quantum Mechanics) is different on ME: "invisibility" demonstrates that electromagnetic radiation acts differently. But that doesnt stop the logical principles from being the same. I am still waiting for a counter-example. *


Your statement above brings us back to my comments on the Physical World versus the Spritual World in ME. We cannot be sure whether the laws of physics apply the same or not. The invisibility you refer to is not really invisibility. It is a fading of the real being into that of the spiritual world. (I can get you the quotes from the book. Gandalf explains it to Frodo on his recovery bed in Imladris.) In so far as we know, this doesn't/can't occur with the laws of physics on our Earth, but we can't be sure because there are and have been unproven manifestations of ghostly behavior on Earth for millennia.

The biggest difference in the worlds of Middle-earth and our Earth is that Middle-earth has a defined and "real" spiritual world. It is not a matter of "faith", it is a matter of existence. It does exist. So, Harad, if you're looking for a difference, I again give you "The Spirit World" of Middle-earth.


----------



## Ancalagon (Jan 16, 2002)

There now Harad, wasn't it painless moving this thread. Now it is a debate on middle-earth - problem solved.


----------



## Tar-Steve (Jan 16, 2002)

The rules of logic cannot be altered.

If a implies b 
then not-b must imply not-a. This is not debatable and if anyone thinks it is then that person simply doesn't "get it" (and there's no arguing with such a person about anything if you think about it). There is no manuverability here in any environment real or imagined. Period.

If you find a case were not-b fails to imply not-a, then the resolution is simply that a does not imply b.

If you find a case in the story where these rules are broken then you have found a flaw in the story. Don't jump the gun though. "a implies b" has to be stated in very clear and unambiguous words before finding the "not-b but a" occurence means anything.


----------



## Tar-Steve (Jan 17, 2002)

Harad,

Actually the a implies b example is as mathmatical as the transitive property. It's not subjectable to being labeled ("e-logic") so it can be superceded by illogic.

(If your going to debate that than I think you're only achievement you'll record will be to back up what some people are saying about you.)

If you find things that don't "add up", all you've proven is that your initial assumption (wearing ring implies invisibility?) is not a usable axiom that could be use in further logical expression.

I don't know De Camp and Pratt but to call non-logic an "employed" "different logic system" sounds kind of stupid and overly academic. Why not just "speak English" and say that authors don't alway adhere to logic in their writings.

Just havin' fun .....


----------



## Grond (Jan 17, 2002)

Has anyone noticed how Harad feels that everyone is always insulting him personally when they make a general statement about something he's said?

Harad, it is apparent that you are paranoid. Are you so uncomfortable with your logic that you feel attacked all the time or could it be your presentation appears to place you leaps and bounds above mere mortal man?


> _originally quoted by Tar-Steve_
> *I don't know De Camp and Pratt but to call non-logic an "employed" "different logic system" sounds kind of stupid and overly academic. Why not just "speak English" and say that authors don't alway adhere to logic in their writings.*


As for this quote. It is not a personal attack on you. It merely asserts that your statement "sounds" kind of stupid and overly academic. That is not an attack on you personally. It is a statement that you should use language that the majority of people in the forum can more easily relate to. BTW, have you been wrong on anything yet?


----------



## Grond (Jan 17, 2002)

Hey, Grond can't help being a "hammer", but I again will try to stay off your back and in my own neighborhood.

Peace!!


----------



## Walter (Jan 17, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Tar-Steve _
> *If you find things that don't "add up", all you've proven is that your initial assumption (wearing ring implies invisibility?) is not a usable axiom that could be use in further logical expression.*


That is about what I was trying to point out - well maybe in a somewhat sarcastic way by using the "uncertainty-principle" - in my reply earlier...


> _Originally posted by Grond _
> *Has anyone noticed how Harad feels that everyone is always insulting him personally when they make a general statement about something he's said?*


*NodNodNod*

I will refrain from saying anymore, but then again, I might as well, because the whole thread will probably deleted overnight anyway...


----------



## Walter (Jan 17, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Harad _
> *If you have nothing on-point to say why not find some other flesh to rend? *


Well whenever I - or someone else - says something that doesn't exactly suit You as an answer it will be wiped off immediatly, called a lie or at least untrue, or taunted or it leads to a personal attack or insult from Your side, so why should I bother again to say something "on-point" to you?


----------



## Tar-Steve (Jan 17, 2002)

Calm down people. 

Harad, To the best of my knowledge I've never "attacked" you before so I don't know why you think I am now. Your interpretation and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

My comment about "what people are saying" was a reference to others accusing you of holding to your beliefs in the face of all valid arguments and logic. This is an attitude towards you that I STILL don't subscribe to. I was only busting your stones a little about it. Sorry 'bout that.

For the record: My comment about things SOUNDING "stupid and overly academic" certainly wasn't about you at all and was directed at De Camp and Pratt. Who I admitted I knew nothing about so I don't see why that should be taken as anything but a limited opinion. As for all this :


> There's something which common sense says is immutable but in fact it isnt, e.g. non-commutative sets, Connes' non-commutative logic, non-commutative geometries.


 ... see my comment about things that are overly academic. BTW, I'm not threatened by academics, just sort of bored by them most of the time. (Did that sound smaug?) 

I'm sorry if you didn't like my reference to the transative property. I was trying to make the point about it being mathematical. Sorry again. It wasn't an analogy anyway ... BTW, Is that why you brought up the commutative property? 

I still think that (A > B) > (-B > -A) all the time everywhere and shouldn't be false in any logic system. If you want to discuss logic systems where you can have one axiom generate another such as in your last example, I don't see the point and I'll pass. If you want to talk about logic systems that have equations like:
-((A > B) > (-B > -A)), then I'll keep posting that you're wrong.

Here's another opinion: I think you see us as flaming toward you because you have a flamer's mentatlity. You throw out a lot more insults than you take. I'm not saying you're the first to ignite in any or all cases, but you're into it. It's obvious, it's your business, and I don't care ... but don't bitch about it. Walk the nice guy line if you want people to be nice to you ... or don't.


----------



## Grond (Jan 17, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Tar-Steve _
> *...Walk the nice guy line if you want people to be nice to you ... or don't. *


Although this isn't directed at me, I think it would be wise for all of us, especially me, to take this tact in dealing with Harad and everyone. Hopefully, everyone will hold to the old adage/scripture, "Treat everyone as you would have them treat you."

Thanks for reminding me of that, Tar-Steve.


----------



## lilhobo (Jan 17, 2002)

hey, everyone is taking this all TOO seriously  

Harad is obviously opinionated to the point of being a one-eyed dick, however i think s/he draws the line at name calling. s/he is not that bad. There are a few others in the film forum that are worse (me for instance 

YOu have to have thick skin on the internet, and anyways, this is a fanatics site.....NOT much fun if everyone agrees with everybody else


----------



## Grond (Jan 19, 2002)

Harad, in Middle-earth you put on a Ring of Power and are taken into a realm of another dimension. I don't know how that could logically happen in our world with our Laws of the Universe as we know them. It is entirely possible that we don't yet know all the Law. Unfortunately, just going from what we got I would say anyone on our Earth claiming they had a ring which would transport them to a spirit world and cause them to travel unseen in this world would be deemed illogical as well as crazy.


----------



## Grond (Jan 20, 2002)

I agree with your assertion Harad but wonder about itsaplicabiity. The One Ring doesn't alter the Laws of Physics. As explained in the books, it transports you so that you are a part of the Spirit/Ethereal Plane of Middle-earth. As far as I know, we don't have one of those here for sure. 

Answer me this. If the the relationship on Middle-earth in so far as the Physical and Ethereal Planes are concerned is a factual one, then would the logic on our world not be the same? Their logic may be different than ours because of their different laws of Physics but the same approach to logic applies. In other words, if a Ring of Power existed, wouldn't if be logical to use it if you so desired, etc. etc. etc. Where on our world, it wouldn't appear logical to even claim such a thing existed.


----------



## Eonwe (Jan 20, 2002)

I took 4 years of physics, 6 years of Calculus, and I still am not sure what is going on here.

Does this relate at all to say, Bose-Einstein Condensation, where as an example in the physics of our world, on a large scale, there should be no such thing as a laser, superconductor or superfluid? Meaning, unless you take into account Quantum mechanics, you can't explain the behaviour and energy in a laser? That is, Harad you are saying we should be able to describe the logic of ME and how it differs from our physics, by somehow coming up with the additional rules, just like with quantum mechanics? Stop me now if I sound stupid or am way off.

Certainly, there are cases when dealing with Quantum mechanics where (A>B)>(-B>-A) does not work (in simple terms) (as in the case of the laser, where the light output initially should not lead to the energy that is experienced), and that *is* our world, and in some cases there are extra terms to deal with these "problems".

??


----------



## Gloer (Jan 20, 2002)

*This is not logical in ME*

A = Eru created all creatures
B = Eru is good
C = there are evil creatures

If A and B then not C is logical.

In the Middle Earth:

A and B and C all are true. 

Logically that can not be. Therefore:
either
A is not true
B is not true 
C is not true

Explain me!


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 20, 2002)

I'm going to warn you all before I start that this discussion is probably way over my head but I'm going to try anyway. Ok, well the laws of physics are different in ME than E, but is that not because they have different races there? The physical laws for men in ME are the same as they are here. Perhaps if we had wizards, elves, etc. the physical laws would change for them. Now that said, I think that ME has the same logical system as we do. If the system was different how could the books become so popular? When reading it one would have found it strange and illogical and the characters and plot would become unrealistic and unrelatable. If you were reading a book where the plot made no sense and the 'heroes' did what you believed illogcal wouldn't you but down the story in frustration? Kind of like in a horror movie where a character goes alone into a dark abandoned house to catch a killer. It makes no sense and the story suffrs. I believe JRRT altered the laws of Physics just enough to create a new world. But the characters still follow our logic system. Despite how in depth a world JRRT created it is still a story and has descrepancies. Does the fact that everything does not perfectly fit make it illogical? I don't think so.


----------



## Harad (Jan 20, 2002)

You raise a practical point, that the very popularity of LOTR implies that it must employ familiar logic. 

Maybe Alice in Wonderland is an example of a popular book with a different logical system: e.g you have to run very fast to stay in the same place; or if you want to get to that hill you have to walk away from it; or if youre introduced to your pudding, then you cant eat it.


----------



## lilhobo (Jan 20, 2002)

errhmmm, tis a fantasy theme.....in fantasy books, the reader is carried away to "another" world of make-believe, where anything and everything is possible... It doesnt have to be logical, since logic is basically a cultural phenomenon. 

for the christians, tis logical to have but one GOD...

in other religions, you can have many GODS......


"happy are those who believe but have not seen"-Jesus


----------



## Grond (Jan 21, 2002)

To Harad and all,
The discussions on this thread are beyond me. My understandings of Quantam Mechanics, Physics and Relativity are woefully inadequate. I apologize for unsubscribing from this thread, but my knowledge of these matters just doesn't measure up to yours. Cheers and I hope all of you are able to resolve this.

Thanks for letting me participate.


----------

