I am not sure how to even respond to this coherently... alas - I try.
Do you think "logical implication" (whatever that is) is not bound by temporal order?
That simply tells me that whatever you think "logic" is - it doesn't concern itself with time or downward causation. e.g your idea of "logic" is not Linear/Temporal logic.
So it can't be the logic of this universe then? Perhaps you've heard the saying "One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens"?
Re:Bertrand Russell’s infinite sock drawer
by tsimionescu on Saturday June 13, 2020 @03:43PM
(#23512104)
Yes, a is implied by b is equivalent to me to b implies a, and it is an atemporal relationship. This is how a lot of logic is taught and practiced, whether in mathematics, physics, engineering or programming. I am a programmer by trade, and even in programming most uses of logic have no concept of time.
When I say x + 1 = 7, therefore x = 6, I see the two statements as being true simultaneously, and simultaneously with the implication.
I am sure there exist logics where time is a necessary component of reasoning, and I am not downplaying their importance. But there also exist logics where time plays no part, and they are not more or less true.
I was just pointing out that the GP's use of the word 'follow' was not about the temporal order of how discoveries are made, but to the logical concept of implication.
That is to say, the GP wasn't complaining that the Tractatus is doing reverse mathematics. They were complaining that the Tractatus is presenting illogical arguments, that it is taking logically unrelated statements and presenting them as conclusions and premises.