|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: J JonesJ Jones Date: Apr 14, 2008 14:03
It is difficult to find a useful significance for the logical operators
if we take them at face value. Take these instances:
A and not A
Either A or not A
Neither A nor not A
All these are true in a spatiotemporal framework. They are also not true
in a spatiotemporal framework, and this without contradiction.
To add insult to injury, in the spatiotemporal framework "either A or
not A" can ALSO imply "A and not A". These observations are based simply
on the everyday ontology of spatiotemporal objects.
In other words, as I would like to point out here, if we insist that the
logico-mathematical operators and their objects are Platonically real,
then we must define the properties of their ontological framework. For
it is clear that if we do not so define that framework then we are drawn
into the ambiguities delivered to us by an otherwise default ontology
given by the spatiotemporal framework, which I have described above.
|
| Show full article (1.46Kb) |
|
| | 6 Comments |
|
|
Author: knucmoknucmo Date: Apr 14, 2008 15:30
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:03:39 +0100, J Jones aol.com>
wrote:
>It is difficult to find a useful significance for the logical operators
>if we take them at face value. Take these instances:
>
>A and not A
>Either A or not A
>Neither A nor not A
>
>All these are true in a spatiotemporal framework. They are also not true
>in a spatiotemporal framework, and this without contradiction.
They're true irrespective of space and time. Space and time acts as
no logical counterexample, defeater, or otherwise to logic at all.
Something in space and time would be regarded as concrete content,
unlike logic, which like maths is abstract. If logic, like maths,
can't be completed, then this implies an finity to our knowledge about
it, but not an ungroundedness.
|
| Show full article (0.98Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: EdEd Date: Apr 14, 2008 19:50
On Apr 14, 5:03 pm, J Jones aol.com> wrote:> It is difficult to find a useful significance for the logical operators
> if we take them at face value. Take these instances:
>
> A and not A
> Either A or not A
> Neither A nor not A
>
> All these are true in a spatiotemporal framework. They are also not true
> in a spatiotemporal framework, and this without contradiction.
> To add insult to injury, in the spatiotemporal framework "either A or
> not A" can ALSO imply "A and not A". These observations are based simply
> on the everyday ontology of spatiotemporal objects.
>
> In other words, as I would like to point out here, if we insist that the
> logico-mathematical operators and their objects are Platonically real,
> then we must define the properties of their ontological framework. For
> it is clear that if we do not so define that framework then we are drawn
> into the ambiguities delivered to us by an otherwise default ontology
> given by the spatiotemporal framework, which I have described above. ...
|
| Show full article (2.19Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Apr 14, 2008 23:22
On Apr 14, 2:03 pm, J Jones aol.com> wrote:> It is difficult to find a useful significance for the logical operators
> if we take them at face value. Take these instances:
>
> A and not A
> Either A or not A
> Neither A nor not A
>
> All these are true in a spatiotemporal framework. They are also not true
> in a spatiotemporal framework, and this without contradiction.
> To add insult to injury, in the spatiotemporal framework "either A or
> not A" can ALSO imply "A and not A". ...
Do you mean "some" A or "all" A, if the former there is no problem but
if the later you commit the existential fallacy;
The quantity of a categorical proposition is determined by whether or
not it refers to all members of its subject class (i.e., universal or
particular). The question "How many?" is asking for quantity.
Indicators of "how much" are called quantity indicators (quantifiers)
and specifically are "all," "no," and "some."
|
| Show full article (3.32Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Apr 14, 2008 23:30
On Apr 14, 11:22 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 14, 2:03 pm, J Jones aol.com> wrote:
>>> It is difficult to find a useful significance for the logical operators
>> if we take them at face value. Take these instances:
>
>> A and not A
>> Either A or not A
>> Neither A nor not A
>
>> All these are true in a spatiotemporal framework. They are also not true
>> in a spatiotemporal framework, and this without contradiction.
>> To add insult to injury, in the spatiotemporal framework "either A or
>> not A" can ALSO imply "A and not A". ...
>
> Do you mean "some" A or "all" A, if the former there is no problem but
> if the later you commit the existential fallacy;
>
> The quantity of a categorical proposition is determined by whether or
> not it refers to all members of its subject class (i.e., universal or ...
|
| Show full article (5.74Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TimTim Date: Apr 15, 2008 04:33
"Immortalist" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a4a3ba10-baa5-4d71-b4e6-7f1495e1fafd@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 14, 2:03 pm, J Jones aol.com> wrote:> It is difficult to find a useful significance for the logical operators
> if we take them at face value. Take these instances:
>
> A and not A
> Either A or not A
> Neither A nor not A
>
> All these are true in a spatiotemporal framework. They are also not true
> in a spatiotemporal framework, and this without contradiction.
> To add insult to injury, in the spatiotemporal framework "either A or
> not A" can ALSO imply "A and not A". ...
Do you mean "some" A or "all" A, if the former there is no problem but
if the later you commit the existential fallacy;
|
| Show full article (3.70Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ZerkonXZerkonX Date: Apr 15, 2008 08:35
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:50:40 -0700, Ed wrote:
> its utility is the issue.
Bravo.
I might add that utility is the only issue.
Also
In adding grains of wheat to a pile, there can not be a logical process
without first having some definition of a pile before the first grain is
placed. This goes for the beard example as well.
Rain is both the presence and absence of water.
I think logic should not be made to fit math operations. It's illogical
for the very reason of the "between them there exists a continuum of
states" continuum which is the same as "between any two numbers there are
infinite numbers". Logic should be able to address things without being
bottle-necked by this unnecessary baggage.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
