Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:00 am I clarify my objective with a linguistic model, then I make sure my representations are all congruent and my feelings are as well, I future run them using various psychological tools and then I use a TOTE system to reach the objective. You?

You are still stuck in the domain of narratives. How do you determine when you've made an error in clarification? What signals to you that you've mis-stepped towards your objective?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:00 am I am interested in what you say as I come from a non-mathematical background and my Logic pretty much stopped at Modal and First Order. So how would you use this calculus to define Philosophy?

I won't use this to define philosophy. Lambda calculus is my tool of self-expression. I would use this to define the criteria for success; and more importantly - failure.

The problem with settling for first-order logic robs you of understanding complexity. The world cannot be expressed or understood in first-order models. It's far too complex for that.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:00 am How do you get this model in the first place?

You build it. With whatever tools for model-building you prefer. Spatial reasoning, lambda calculus, geometrical shapes. First order logic.

But you, the human still decide whether it behaves as expected.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:00 am I thought I was talking about a model for Physics?

It doesn't matter. A model of anything requires criteria for "accuracy". The map is not the territory, but the map is a representation of the territory.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:00 am I look forward to learning how it is applicable to living and thought.

The logic criterion of decidability is directly related to computation and computer science and Turing's halting problem.
Lambda calculus is isomorphic (equivalent) to a universal Turing machine (which is why it's called the Church-Turing thesis).
Decision theory is the theory of choice ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory ).

Decisions/decidability are the same mental phenomenon. If you follow down this train of thought you will recognise that:

You choose the philosophers you like.
You choose the theories you like.
You choose the definitions of truth you like.
You choose the language you use to describe your experiences.
You choose the language you use to achieve clarification.
And you also choose the criteria which indicate success or failure (of clarification).

And so - to your question of "How have I chosen my logic?"

I have chosen a logic which can describe/express all of the above the mechanics of all of the above processes.

But because I am goal/objective driven, I (the human) am always the source of the criterion for success.
And ultimately - I decide whether the algorithm/model/tool/machine does what I expect it to do.

Utility.

If I were to reduce my argument to a sound byte: The integration/application of philosophy and science produces systems thinking.
The all-encompassing human discipline of "understanding". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

If we both agree and understand what a "model" is (Platonic form) then you can think of decision theory/computer science/complexity science as the science and thought-structures of model-building.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:45 am you can understand why, as the natural philosophers had well and truly put the kibosh on the Aristotelian idea that you could just think about the world and come to the correct conclusions about it.

That's what you've learnt in your career?!
I thought myself that Aristotle's idea was in fact to provide a formal method of logic to help the development of empirical sciences, not to think up stuff and expect to be correct just like that.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:45 amFrom what I gather from Logik much more has been produced than just '1st order' logic since that time.

Sure, more. More but also less logical.
Perhaps "more logikal"!
Remember, mathematical logic wasn't always called that and there's no good reason to believe that the material implication is a proper model of the logical implication as we understand it since Aristotle.
EB

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:22 am You are still stuck in the domain of narratives. How do you determine when you've made an error in clarification? What signals to you that you've mis-stepped towards your objective? I won't use this to define philosophy. Lambda calculus is my tool of self-expression. I would use this to define the criteria for success; and more importantly - failure. The problem with settling for first-order logic robs you of understanding complexity. The world cannot be expressed or understood in first-order models. It's far too complex for that. You build it. With whatever tools for model-building you prefer. Spatial reasoning, lambda calculus, geometrical shapes. First order logic. But you, the human still decide whether it behaves as expected. It doesn't matter. A model of anything requires criteria for "accuracy". The map is not the territory, but the map is a representation of the territory. The logic criterion of decidability is directly related to computation and computer science and Turing's halting problem. Lambda calculus is isomorphic (equivalent) to a universal Turing machine (which is why it's called the Church-Turing thesis). Decision theory is the theory of choice ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory ). Decisions/decidability are the same mental phenomenon. If you follow down this train of thought you will recognise that: You choose the philosophers you like. You choose the theories you like.
You choose the definitions of truth you like. You choose the language you use to describe your experiences.
You choose the language you use to achieve clarification. And you also choose the criteria which indicate success or failure (of clarification). And so - to your question of "How have I chosen my logic?" I have chosen a logic which can describe/express all of the above the mechanics of all of the above processes. But because I am goal/objective driven, I (the human) am always the source of the criterion for success.
And ultimately - I decide whether the algorithm/model/tool/machine does what I expect it to do. Utility. If I were to reduce my argument to a sound byte: The integration/application of philosophy and science produces systems thinking. The all-encompassing human discipline of "understanding". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory If we both agree and understand what a "model" is (Platonic form) then you can think of decision theory/computer science/complexity science as the science and thought-structures of model-building.

I don't understand all this philosophical charabia.
Please try again using Lambda calculus.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:14 pm I don't understand all this philosophical charabia.
Please try again using Lambda calculus.
EB

OK. You should've said so sooner! I was only defaulting to English because I thought that's all you can speak.

This is the philosophical notion of dualism defined in Mathematics.
Anybody competent in Mathematics should understand that!

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:16 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:14 pm I don't understand all this philosophical charabia.
Please try again using Lambda calculus.
EB

OK. You should've said so sooner! I was only defaulting to English because I thought that's all you can speak.

This is the philosophical notion of dualism defined in Mathematics.

Meaning.png

Anybody competent in Mathematics should understand that!

You're insane, I didn't ask for that.
So, you can't articulate using Lambda calculus what you did using English.
QED.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:35 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:16 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 12:14 pm I don't understand all this philosophical charabia.
Please try again using Lambda calculus.
EB

OK. You should've said so sooner! I was only defaulting to English because I thought that's all you can speak.

This is the philosophical notion of dualism defined in Mathematics.

Meaning.png

Anybody competent in Mathematics should understand that!

You're insane, I didn't ask for that.
So, you can't articulate using Lambda calculus what you did using English.
QED.
EB

You asked me to articulate in Lambda calculus.

I articulated. You didn’t understand.

That is why I am speaking English to you.
Because you don’t speak Lambda calculus.

Q.E.D

Does that make me “insane” or does it mean I speak more languages than you do.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:40 pm You asked me to articulate in Lambda calculus.I articulated.

No, you didn't.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:40 pmYou didn’t understand.

You don't know that. You've admitted you don't know anything.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:40 pmThat is why I am speaking English to you.
Because you don’t speak Lambda calculus.

You don't know that. You've admitted you don't know anything.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:31 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:40 pm You asked me to articulate in Lambda calculus.I articulated.

No, you didn't.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:40 pmYou didn’t understand.

You don't know that. You've admitted you don't know anything.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:40 pmThat is why I am speaking English to you.
Because you don’t speak Lambda calculus.

You don't know that. You've admitted you don't know anything.
EB

I don’t know anything, but I am exceptionally lucky at guessing...

The more I practice - the luckier I get.

Par for the course when you abandon dogmatism.

Logic wrote:
You choose the philosophers you like
You choose the theories you like
You choose the definitions of truth you like
You choose the language you use to describe your experiences
You choose the language you use to achieve clarification
And you also choose the criteria which indicate success or failure ( of clarification )

And so - to your question of How have I chosen my logic ?

I have chosen a logic which can describe / express all of the above the mechanics of all of the above processes

But because I am goal / objective driven I ( the human ) am always the source of the criterion for success
And ultimately - I decide whether the algorithm / model / tool / machine does what I expect it to do

So if there is more than one logic then how do you decide which is the most efficient or rigorous one ?
The criteria you have listed above are rather subjective and appear to be based on simple preference
Would it not be more reliable to choose one according to evidence / empiricism than personal choice ?
Have you always used the same logic or did you use another one before and if so why did you change it ?

Speakpigeon wrote:That's what you've learnt in your career?! ...

Which career?

I thought myself that Aristotle's idea was in fact to provide a formal method of logic to help the development of empirical sciences, not to think up stuff and expect to be correct just like that. ...

I stand corrected although I'm dubious of his claim that universal truths can be deduced just from the ones discovered by induction.

Sure, more. More but also less logical. ...

How so?

Perhaps "more logikal"!
Remember, mathematical logic wasn't always called that and there's no good reason to believe that the material implication is a proper model of the logical implication as we understand it since Aristotle.
EB

I'll take your word for it or even better tell me the difference? But for sure the material conditional doesn't capture all the uses for 'if...then' in English or any Natural Language I guess but that's why there're things like the biconditional, counterfactual and indicative conditionals, along with Modal and Relevance logics(I think there's more but for the life of me can't remember).
p.s.
Why did you ignore my question about what you think a 'proper' logic involves?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:18 am So if there is more than one logic then how do you decide which is the most efficient or rigorous one ?

Completeness.

Lambda calculus is Turing-complete and therefore it's a super-set of all logics.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:18 am The criteria you have listed above are rather subjective and appear to be based on simple preference

All criteria are subjective. You could prefer a logic that is incomplete for your own reasons.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:18 am Would it not be more reliable to choose one according to evidence / empiricism than personal choice ?

And what would empiricism tell you that logic X is <insert some superlative here> than logic Y?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:18 am Have you always used the same logic or did you use another one before and if so why did you change it ?

I have been programming since age 5 (over 30 years now) so I developed intuitions about logic way before I could give it a name.
Way before I could even explain things like 'completeness', 'soundness' or 'validity'. When I eventually started studying logic I naturally ended up in the world of classical/Aristotelian/predicate logic. And its incompleteness has always irked me.

Mostly - what irks me about it is that it pre-supposes truth. It is focused on what you can say and lacks any/all semantics for asking questions.
How did you obtain any truth without asking any questions?

Show me a question in classical logic...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:31 am p.s. Why did you ignore my question about what you think a 'proper' logic involves?

I was talking about a proper formal logic, i.e. a way to formalise properly whatever logic may be.
I'm a rational being, so, here, "proper" just means rational. However, rationality means facts and logic. So, to develop a proper formal logic, you need to know the facts of logic and use whatever logic you have.
The logic you have is your logical intuition. It is essentially as good as you would expect from a sense of perception, say, your visual sense. So, you can trust it, and if you don't want to trust it then you may as well stay in bed and wait for death.
The facts of logic are all the facts of human logical reasoning. The facts of human logical reasoning are provided first by your own logical intuition again and, second, by the history of logical concepts, starting with the paradox of the Liar, then Aristotle, the Stoic, the Scholastic. All that is remarkably consistent, except for a few original people here and there. That's what proper means.
EB

If logic is intuitive why did Aristotle bother to try and formalize it?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:53 pm If logic is intuitive why did Aristotle bother to try and formalize it?

If logic isn't intuitive, what's there to formalise?
As to why Aristotle did it, it's easy to understand. Why do we bother to write books, do you think? Why do we even bother to use language to communicate?
EB

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:53 pm If logic is intuitive why did Aristotle bother to try and formalize it?

Logic could be intuitive. It doesn't mean our intuitions are aligned.

It's precisely why matehmaticians speak of their "mathematical intuition". It comes with practicing logics that aren't frequently encountered in day-to-day life.

Formalism allows for such alignments. By stating the rules to which the interlocutors are expected to adhere to upfront calibration becomes possible.

If logic is isomorphic to metaphysics (and I have every reason to believe it is), then if our metaphysics (intuitions!) are aligned - it's trivial to reach consensus because we spend no time arguing over logical constructs.

That's why computer scientists can reach consensus so quickly. Fundamentally - we all think the same way.