26
March 2016
I found these interesting
questions/responses on Quora this morning.
** **
What is free logic, and
how does it differ from classical logic?
Quinn Russell, specialized
in logic and language in philosophy
118 Views • Quinn is a Most Viewed
Writer in Logic
(philosophy).
John
Bailey's description is correct and a consequence of the main difference. Free
logic does not assume existential import. In predicate calculus, the existential
quantifier some means at least one and generally assumes
existence in a domain. Unicorns can be discussed as existent in a
fictional domain where unicorns exist. But free logic removes the existential
import on the quantifier, which also allegedly frees it from the constraints of
the domain in which it is said to exist.
Note that
this difference mostly applies to specific variables, not universally
generalized ones (as classically distinguished by the syllogistic square).
There has been debate over the centuries whether universal variables assume
existential import. In other words, can the set of “all unicorns” be empty? If
yes, which has been the dominant view, and we interpret “all unicorns have
horns” as “if it is a unicorn, it has horns”, then the sentence is trivially
true because its antecedent is false because unicorns don’t exist. Requiring
universal terms to be existential as well might be overly restrictive, however,
leading to a Platonic-like metaphysical realism about universals. When
proposing natural laws, for example, we would like to propose laws for
potential or possible natural states, states which might not yet actually exist
but are predicted by the natural law.
It’s also worth noting that a
modern propositional logic, which is not quantified, and its variables can be
interpreted as always universal, is a sort of free logic because it does not
require existential import. It could be said that one aim of free logic is to
free logic from its metaphysical commitments so it can be applied to any
ontology. Aside from the metaphysical question about whether universals,
particulars, or both actually exist, or in what manner or mode they exist, free
logics decouple truth from existence. This is particularly useful
for some notions of truth in which truth is interpreted as coherence,
persistence, consistency, preservational, or semantic, in other
words, in almost any non-correspondence theory of truth. It’s also useful for
paraconsistent logics where we might use multiple truth values without
intending a sort of dualism regarding existence. [ Bold is mind. rho]
***
Answer written •
Psychology
• 5d ago
What kind of ideas is a person with an IQ of 100 unable to
grasp?
Gabriel Horn, (IQ 186
Cattell scale; 153 Wechsler.)
27.3k Views
Interesting
question!
The
difference between 100 and, say, 170, isn’t that great or remarkable. They’re
both expressions of highly complex cognitive abilities, and as such merely
nuances. It’s really not ‘an added 70%’. More accurately visualized, I’d say
something like an extra (most of the time redundant) centimeter to a meter.
With the
risk of being too abstract, I suppose the difference could be the ‘intuitive’
appreciation of omnipresent patterns and how these tie into everything all the
time, like: interconnectedness of seeming randomness, different resolutions of
our context echoing of similarities from micro to macro and vice versa, the
mechanistics bringing about evolution, correlation vs. causality, the
filtration dismissing pseudoscientific ideas, etc.
For many
or most of the highly intelligent people I’ve met, this ‘sense’ is always there
and, sort of, ‘pulls’ forward ideas and trajectories in a
stream-of-consciousness type of way. For others, it seems, this isn’t there by
default, even though it can certainly be called upon and brought forth.
(In terms of specific logical or
creative challenges, I suppose anyone will understand anything once it’s
explained clearly enough for that person – the challenge then being for the
explainer, not the recipient.) [Bold is mine. rho]
Selected and edited from
QuoraDOTcom
** **
27
March 2016
Noon, local
time. You spent yesterday afternoon buying nine bags of soil in two trips plus
distributing and smoothing the soil in four locations in the front yard near
your remaining surviving trees. You then promptly forgot about writing thinking
you had nothing to post anyway. – Amorella
1205
hours. This is not a good sign in terms of my cognitive abilities. Remembering
has been a mixed blessing. Alas, my interpretation of Merlyn is suffering from
it --not a great self-realization on an Easter morning.
Such mixed self-humor, orndorff. – Amorella
1210
hours. And, so goes the world too.
Evening. Earlier you and Carol watched and enjoyed five
episodes of “Doc Martin”. You watched the final of season
seven first, then the rest of season one. Carol went up to read and you watched
another episode of season four of “X-Files”. – Amorella
2132
hours. The day has been pleasant. Carol made ham, potatoes, and mixed veggies
for Easter dinner and cooked cut apples with cinnamon in a sauce for dessert –
a nice surprise. I was going to work in the yard but did not. I did check up on
Kim, Paul and the boys; they arrived at their place in Kissimmee. Trust they
are having a very good time with their friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment