Reality of Logic (Logic vs. Realtiy)

While almost everyone believes they know things the truth of the matter is that no one knows very much. People believe that they can prove things. Take for example the logic sequence: A. All dogs are mammals, B. My pet, Lily, is a dog, therefor C. Lily is a mammal. At first this may seem logical but further examination shows that this kind of proof is invalid. There are two main problems. The first being that You must first prove that "All dogs are mammals" and "My pet, Lily, is a dog" independently and secondly must prove that the two are in fact related and can produce the C "value".

Take "My pet, Lily, is a dog", before we can use this in the original statement we must first prove this. Now if you took a look at Lily you would say "What are you talking about, of course she is a dog." But the reality (and my point) of this situation is that our perceptions convince us that Lily is a dog. What if Lily really is a cat in a really good dog costume, maybe Lily is imaginary, or maybe Lily is robot. There are an infinite number possibilities were Lily isn't a dog but just seems that way. Since there is an infinite number of possibilities then there is no single piece of evidence that can cover all scenarios because there will always be the "what if this ...".

Hypothetically you have evidence so strong that there is no doubt that "A. All dogs are mammals, B. My pet, Lily, is a dog" now you must prove that these do in fact result in the C. Now this may be confusing because most people are stuck in a logic built world but consider What if A. was instead "All mammals are dogs" would C. still hold true? No and this is the similar to "all squares are rectangles but rectangles are not all squares" except that squares and rectangles are abstract ideas/objects.

First examining a statement that seems obviously true may be confusing for some so lets look at a statement that should be false. "A. President bush has a bushy tale, B. All squirrels have busy tales, therefor C. President bush must be a squirrel." Consider that one day your watching some TV and there GWB is and on top of that he has a bushy tale. Now you could use the logic statement above but consider first that you have to prove it. Could this TV image be doctored, or maybe it is part of a costume, maybe he surgically got it implanted, or maybe he really is a squirrel in a human disguised and his tale is accidentally popping out. Secondly and most importantly does the logic statement hold true if both A and B are found to be true (which is impossible but for sake of argument) ? "Logically" this would prove that bush is squirrel but only because the relation between A and B were not proven. Truthfully it is possibly for this to fail. Considering that other animals have bushy tales it is possibly that GWB could be a raccoon, a chipmunk, a dog. Just because A and B are true does not make C true and worse yet there is no way to prove that A and B will ever equal C no matter how things seem.

It is important to remember two things. the first is that this applies only to "real" things and not to abstracted things. For example Mathematical logic statements are provable because they are abstractions and we can make it true or false if we so choose because we created math rules. Secondly remember that these are ideas about realty and not abstraction which is why this only applies to the real and not abstractions.