POLL 3 on the validity of a simple argument on Joe the Squid

[Arising_uk]

If logic isn't intuitive, what's there to formalise? ...

But your claim was it is as intuitive as vision, do we formalise that?

As to why Aristotle did it, it's easy to understand. ...

Is it, do you read it in the original Greek?

Why do we bother to write books, do you think? ...

To store information verbatim over time.

Why do we even bother to use language to communicate?
EB

Well it could be we're just like the birds, etc but for myself it's to communicate thoughts.

[Logik]

Why do we even bother to use language to communicate?

Why do we bother to use language? To communicate.

Why do we bother to communicate?

Now that's a philosophical question. All "why?" questions lead to intentionality.

[surreptitious57]

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 or 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 ?

You can have a system that is both incomplete and useful so why not simply use it for what it can do ?
Would a complete system not require omniscience otherwise how would you know it was complete ?
Do all logic systems pre suppose truth ? Is not truth a question more for philosophy than for logic ?
Is it not true that the so called truth of logic systems pertains only to the rigour of their axioms ?
Why then do you need to ask any questions if all you require are those axioms and nothing else ?

[Speakpigeon]

If logic isn't intuitive, what's there to formalise? ...

But your claim was it is as intuitive as vision, do we formalise that?

Yes.

As to why Aristotle did it, it's easy to understand. ...

Is it, do you read it in the original Greek?

My point was not that Aristotle was easy to understand, whether you know Greek or not.
That being said, Aristotle is easy to understand.

Why do we bother to write books, do you think? ...

To store information verbatim over time.

Whoa.

Why do we even bother to use language to communicate?

Well it could be we're just like the birds, etc but for myself it's to communicate thoughts.

And?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Why do we even bother to use language to communicate?

Why do we bother to use language? To communicate. Why do we bother to communicate? Now that's a philosophical question. All "why?" questions lead to intentionality.

Derail.
EB

[Arising_uk]

Yes. ...

How so?

My point was not that Aristotle was easy to understand, whether you know Greek or not.
That being said, Aristotle is easy to understand. ...

Then I look forward to your explanation of his 'if..then' and why it is not covered by the various conditionals that are about.

Whoa. ...

Silver?

And?
EB

And what?

[Logik]

So if there is more than one logic then how do you decide which is the most efficient or rigorous one ?

I am being somewhat irresponsible with my terminology. Ive been using logic and grammar interchangeably, but the distinction is very important when you get to the details.

Logic (logos/language) is a concept.The manifestation of logic is the set of rules which give form to grammar and semantics.
I use the Chomsky hierrachy: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/toc-chomsky-hierarchy/

Type 0 grammars are universal - complete in principle, but not in practice due to epistemic gaps.
Type 1 grammars are functionally identical to type 2 and 3 grammars.
Type 2 grammars are functionally identical to type 3 grammars.
Type 3 grammar is functionally identical to First Order Logic.

The criteria you have listed above are rather subjective and appear to be based on simple preference

Sure. Utility is subjective.

For the purposes of philosophy (lip service) Type 3 is fine.
For the purposes of precision (physics) you soon begin to recognise their limits.

A physicist can always switch from Type 0 to Type 3.
A philosopher can't switch from Type 3 to Type 0.

[Arising_uk]

You are still stuck in the domain of narratives. How do you determine when you've made an error in clarification? ...

Depends what I'm considering but generally I should end up with the sentence "It'll make me happy".

What signals to you that you've mis-stepped towards your objective?

In the main whether I think I'm closer or further away from my goal when I started or have I reached one of the intermediate states on the way there, like I say, at present, I use a TOTE process.

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. ...

An example please and not one concerned with computing.

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. ...

Well the world might not be but its a pretty good ready reckoner for language. By the by, what would be the quantifiers added to it that make it 2nd, 3rd, etc order logics?

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

I get that but how did you get the idea for the model in the first place?

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

For sure.

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. ...

We talk the same language in many respects, or at least use the same quotes. Philosophically tho' we could say we have no idea of the territory and it's just maps all the way down.
(Along with the 'the map is...' I like 'Feedback not failure' and 'The meaning of one's words are the response they get.' )

The logic criterion of decidability is directly related to computation and computer science and Turing's halting problem. ...

I'm listening.

Lambda calculus is isomorphic (equivalent) to a universal Turing machine (which is why it's called the Church-Turing thesis).

Correct me if I'm wrong but can't I write a UTM in Prolog and if so then is its predicate logic not isomorphic too? Also I thought Lambda Calculus was isomorphic to a specific logic, i.e. intuitionistic logic, and as such not applicable to all logics?

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). ...

For sure but how do you get to making that choice in the first place? As my experience in studying philosophy and having to read those I didn't like is that that process can change the choice.

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. ...

You'd have to give me an example(so I can understand) of how you went about using your logic to choose the philosophers, theories, etc, you like

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. ...

No argument there.

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.

Sure but I'd like some examples of how the everday person could use such things.

[Logik]

Depends what I'm considering but generally I should end up with the sentence "It'll make me happy".

Which can be turned to its contra positive. Happiness is the absence of unhappiness.
So you necessarily need to have a check list of things that would make you unhappy.

When you can no longer detect any anxiety, concerns, irritability, doubt, uncertainty within my mind.
Then I can say that I have arrived.

What makes me unhappy? That's a LOOOONG list.

In the main whether I think I'm closer or further away from my goal when I started or have I reached one of the intermediate states on the way there, like I say, at present, I use a TOTE process.

Great. Without needing to unpack it, It has an exit strategy - par for the course for any algorithm!
e.g avoiding the halting problem

An example please and not one concerned with computing.

I don't know how to do that. I have wired my brain (Metaphysics) to be computational.
Or rather - I have wired my "reasoning" module to be algorithmic.

case AverageMonthlyExpenditure / BankAccount.balance():
<= 1.10) Anxiety (Phone alert to self)
<= 1.20) Concern (e-mail notification to self)

In English: I like to have a 10-20% safety margin in my bank account.
I bet accountants have a fancy term for cashflow management here, but I don't know what the word is.

I have built that system using this toy: https://aws.amazon.com/lambda/
And so I spend absolutely no time looking at my bank account.

Unless it drops to 20% of spending.
I have similar alerts for spend limits etc.

Contrast this with the 2-4 hours a week I used to spend managing my finances. Freedom...

Well the world might not be but its a pretty good ready reckoner for language. By the by, what would be the quantifiers added to it that make it 2nd, 3rd, etc order logics?

Of course, but if your mental model of reality is first order logic, but your language is 4th order logic then you are filling in detail. Delusions/Wishful thinking etc. You don't really have a choice - you are missing knowledge.
Where if your mental model is High order logic (but your language is 4th order logic) you are discarding detail when communicating.

Only one of the above scenarios gives you a real choice.

I get that but how did you get the idea for the model in the first place?

Imagination. Experience. Art. Books. Any other source of inspiration. Strong aversion to "problems" and that which makes me unhappy.
Strong desire to fix things.

We talk the same language in many respects, or at least use the same quotes. Philosophically tho' we could say we have no idea of the territory and it's just maps all the way down.

Agreed, but we can know when the map doesn't correspond to a the territory. That's what model error is. Expectations do not align with experience.
Disaster struck!

(Along with the 'the map is...' I like 'Feedback not failure' and 'The meaning of one's words are the response they get.' )

Of course! It's definitely not intuitive to think like a scientist. Most people try to convince themselves that they are right, and never ever attempt to convince themselves of being wrong.

To ask your wife "Is anything wrong?" is to set yourself up for confirmation bias!
If something is wrong - she will say "No'.
If everything is OK - she sill still say "No'.

You need to ask a question that goes AGAINST your expectation!

I'm listening.

As above. You already understand what falsification is and how to use it.

I just understand WHY it works.

To posit a proposition that can be answered with Yes/No is the same as to posit its contra-positive.
If you expect the proposition's answer to be Yes, the you should also expect that the contra-positive answer is No.

Which evidence is easier to obtain? One for the positive or contra-positive question? Both?

When you get an answer that goes against your expectations the emotion of SURPRISE takes place (e.g HEY! This is unexpected)
That's what new information feels like.

Science is all about fucking with your own emotions while paying attention to them.

Correct me if I'm wrong but can't I write a UTM in Prolog and if so then is its predicate logic not isomorphic too?

Prolog is Turing-complete so yes - it's equivalent.

The grammar/semantics of Prolog are very limited so if I can express something in 5 lines of Python you may need 100 lines of Prolog to do the same.
Of course - the fundamental difference between predicate logic in English and Prolog is that you don't have the compiler/interpreter checking you for grammatical/syntax/semantic errors every step of the way!

Compilers give you low-latency negative feedback loops!
You become aware of your own reasoning errors sooner and you iterate faster when you program. You develop better thought-discipline faster. Practice, fail, repeat. Practice, fail repeat. Over and over and over and over.

With arguments formulated in English the only feedback loop you have is other people.

That's all there is to it really. Learning through repetitive failure.

Also I thought Lambda Calculus was isomorphic to a specific logic, i.e. intuitionistic logic, and as such not applicable to all logics?

Lambda calculus is Turing-complete. e.g decidable. Every other logic is a subset of it.
This is as per the Chomsky hierarchy.

For sure but how do you get to making that choice in the first place? As my experience in studying philosophy and having to read those I didn't like is that that process can change the choice.

My experience is that the process synthesizes a plan to achieve one's goals.
Or at least - understand why they are unrealistic, or VERY difficult.

Sure but I'd like some examples of how the everday person could use such things.

I need an example of a need/desire/problem.

Forewarning though, if you know about TOTE then I am probably not going to show you anything ground-breaking.
I merely have more tools in my toolbox so I know how to quickly navigate around common problems that we trip over.
Indecision. Ambiguity. Too many options. Risk. Competing objectives. Limited resources etc.

In the end it's about reducing all the strategic/mechanical problems strictly to economical problems: doing the actual work.