Core Assumptions and Principles #13

13. Our "laws" of logic and rationality are not fundamental to the universe a priori

I feel like this might be one of my more controversial positions, so I will attempt to explain it clearly, which I am not at all certain I can do. The basic idea here is that we should not discount our experiences on the basis that they do not fit our logical rational expectations. This is not to say that we should accept them pure on face value, but rather that when we encounter the illogical or irrational we need to take a step back and investigate, accept that these things might very well be true, most likely they are the result of some error either in perception or understanding, but it is important to understand what error if any is responsible and not simply assume the error and force our experiences to fit with our expectations. Our so called "laws" of logic are simply the accumulated predictive guidence of past experience both our own and that of those who came before us and passed their knowledge down. As such these laws are highly useful for predicting the likely future and for recognizing when we may be in error, but they are also subject to change as the result of new experiences and interpretations of past experience. The danger is that we too often allow our understanding of logic determine our understanding of experience rather than treat it as the useful but not final tool that it truly is.
The best example of the importance of this idea comes out of the field of quantum mechanics. With the new discoveries of the aspects of the quantum world we face the possibility of particles occupying more than one location at a given point in time, having two contradictory attributes simultaneously, and having interactions across space instantaneously. All of these things do not fit into the established logical structures but that does not mean they are not true. These new discoveries require new methods of thought and understanding and adjustments to our pre-existing understadings to the limits of what is possible.
A second aspect of this thought is that even the ideas which we have derived from experience and serve us without fail are only true in so far as they accurate represent the case as it is not as it must be. This relates back to the Goldilocks hypothesis that the universe in which we live is only one of an infinite number of possible universes such that those things which we perceive as necessary are only appear that way because we came about within them, and had they been different we would not have come about as we did. This hypothesis usually comes up in the discussion of the existence of God to explain why a creator is unnecessary to explain a universe precisely suited for our own existence. This does not however require the actual existence of these alternate universes only the recognition of their possibility.