What is the Relationship Between Information Theory and Logic?

What is the Relationship Between Information Theory and Logic?

June 28, 2021 Off By Felso

Information theory and logic are not only sciences related to the objects of knowing and thinking, but also sciences of knowledge formulated with language.

In terms of being the science of thinking and knowing directed towards objects, the theory of knowledge is also coterminous with psychology. Information theory is not a part of psychology, but should be based on psychology’s research, or rather, a part of its study of cognitive phenomena in consciousness. The science of the objects of knowing and thinking, and the theory of knowledge, generally in terms of being the science of all thinkables, borders on the sciences dealing with the same object fields and groups; The theory of knowledge cannot stay away from research on the concepts and methods of these sciences. In terms of being the science of knowledge, the results of which are formulated in language, the theory of knowledge coincides with another science: linguistics—not the science of languages—general grammar of the ubiquitous forms of language, and the science of signs in general.

Information theory-logic studies have to make the starting point of knowledge that is partially available, that is, formulated in language. However, these studies should also try to make a judgment about the extent to which language-grammatical forms are purely linguistic, and to what extent these forms conform to the forms of our thinking. So, it is necessary to determine to what extent we can remove thinking from speaking and how well these language forms fit the forms and structures of objects. By the way, we should point out that there are still discussions on this important issue today, and that Aristotle’s logic, which is the main stream of ancient logic, and Kant’s logic, which is the main stream of modern logic, are completely opposite to each other on this issue.

Aristotle, our thinking reflects objects; He is of the opinion that our speech also reflects thinking fully and directly. For him, Aristotle believes that the structure of language reflects the structure of objects, and his logic, which is ontological in principle, therefore widely takes language as its starting point. Whereas Kant, sentence forms, namely language, accurately reflect the structure of our thinking; but thinking is not to make copies of objects, but to give form to sense-materials with the help of thinking forms; and he is of the opinion that objects are formed only as a result of the activity of thinking, that is, we impose our own forms of thinking on objects.

Most of our sentences are constructed to describe a predicate (praeclicatum) about a subject (subjektum). Why is that? Because, according to Aristotle, it is the nature of objects to have qualities; The grammatical relationship between the subject and the predicate in the sentence also reflects the ontic relationship between the object and its quality. For Kant, on the contrary, we attribute qualities to objects because we think in this way; because everywhere our thinking tries to form predicates with subjects, that is, to use these forms of our minds.

Compiled by: Sociologist Ömer YILDIRIM
Source: Omer YILDIRIM’s Personal Lecture Notes. Atatürk University Sociology Department 1st Year “Introduction to Philosophy” and 2nd, 3rd, 4th Grade “History of Philosophy” Lecture Notes (Ömer YILDIRIM); “Information Theory and Logic” Ernst von Aster