logic

When writing novels, I am always afraid that my imagination will be too unscrupulous and that I will be ridiculed for being out of logic. But what is logic when you think about it? From a scientific point of view, logic is mathematics and cannot be questioned. Although the initial assumptions are artificial, the reasoning process based on assumptions is completely logical and immutable. Even after thousands of years, tens of thousands of people reasoning on the same assumptions, completely logically reasoning, the results will not change. Such a phenomenon is obviously very gratifying to human beings, because it avoids countless duplication of work. As long as the previous people made a logical reasoning for a certain hypothesis, the results obtained by the predecessors must be acceptable. Under the condition that the assumptions remain unchanged, the conclusions of thousands of years ago are still the same today. established the same. So if the results produced by logical reasoning are so convincing, is logic itself convincing in the first place? This makes me think that the definition of logic seems to be convincing, specifically, convincing most people.

To say that a person is crazy is to say that he has lost his reason, even if he has lost the ability of logical judgment and reasoning. That is to say, the behavior of the lunatic is very puzzling, and it is difficult for ordinary people to predict what the next behavior of the lunatic will be. Have these elegant people ever thought that the logic most people agree with is not applicable to lunatics, and lunatics have their own logic. Of course, people can insist that he is lunatic because they can show evidence. Brain scans of the lunatic showed that the brain tissue of the lunatic was diseased. So what is a disease? Or can we say that what is different from ordinary people is a disease? Well, you can say more scientifically that his brain tissue is diseased because his brain function is declining. So what is the function of the brain? Obviously, his behavior can still be carried out "normally", he can walk, see, speak, and hear you say he is a lunatic. This abnormal processing is regarded as an abnormal brain function.

But is this difference in how information is handled by the average person evidence of insanity? This reminds me of an example from the movie The Oxford Killer. A scientist set up a set of questions to test the IQ level of test takers, which is probably the ancestor of the IQ test questions we use today. The title is like this: Scientists write a series of sequences according to certain rules, which can be numbers or graphics. For example, the even number sequence 2, 4, 6, 8..., or the Fibonacci sequence 1, 1, 2, 3, 5.... Each question gives the first three of the sequence, and then asks the test taker to write the next next sequence. Scientists judge the IQ level of test takers based on how many questions they answer correctly. He divided the results into high, medium and low IQ categories. There is nothing unusual about this. He took a closer look at the low-level ones, and found that in addition to some people who could not answer most of the questions and got low marks, there were also some people who answered most of the questions, but the answers were wrong. . He called the latter group over one by one, because he thought it was very strange, how could he come up with such an answer. But what surprised him was that almost everyone could give an explanation for their answer, and the scientists who listened to the explanation felt their answer was logical. So the scientist wondered if the known symbols given by the sequence in his question were not enough, so that the answer was not limited enough, so that so many weird answers could be generated. But to his despair, another mathematician proved that even if the first four in a sequence of numbers are given, there can still be an infinite number of answers for the fifth number, that is, any number appears in the first four A string of "regular series" can still be formed after the numbers.
I don’t know if there will be mathematicians who make everyone desperate in the future. It can be proved that even if the first arbitrary finite number of a series of numbers is given, and then an arbitrary number is added, it can still be explained that this string of numbers constitutes a series of “regular” numbers. series of numbers". Anything that a madman does can also find reasons to explain its rationality, and it can prove that anyone is not a madman, and it is regular and logical.

View more about The Oxford Murders reviews