Tolerance and the distributed sorites

On some accounts of vagueness, predicates like “is a heap” are tolerant. That is, their correct application tolerates sufficiently small changes in the objects to which they are applied. Of course, such views face the sorites paradox, and various solutions have been proposed. One proposed solution involves banning repeated appeals to tolerance, while affirming tolerance in any individual case. In effect, this solution rejects the reasoning of the sorites argument. This paper discusses a thorny problem afflicting this approach to vagueness. In particular, it is shown that, on the foregoing view, whether an object is a heap will sometimes depend on factors extrinsic to that object, such as whether its components came from other heaps. More generally, the paper raises the issue of how to count heaps in a tolerance-friendly framework

A Recipe for Paradox

In this paper, we provide a recipe that not only captures the common structure of semantic paradoxes but also captures our intuitions regarding the relations between these paradoxes. Before we unveil our recipe, we first talk about a well-known schema introduced by Graham Priest, namely, the Inclosure Schema. Without rehashing previous arguments against the Inclosure Schema, we contribute different arguments for the same concern that the Inclosure Schema bundles together the wrong paradoxes. That is, we will provide further arguments on why the Inclosure Schema is both too narrow and too broad. We then spell out our recipe. The recipe shows that all of the following paradoxes share the same structure: The Liar, Curry's paradox, Validity Curry, Provability Liar, Provability Curry, Knower's paradox, Knower's Curry, Grelling-Nelson's paradox, Russell's paradox in terms of extensions, alternative Liar and alternative Curry, and hitherto unexplored paradoxes. We conclude the paper by stating the lessons that we can learn from the recipe, and what kind of solutions the recipe suggests if we want to adhere to the Principle of Uniform Solution

Vagueness unlimited: In defence of a pragmatical approach to sorites paradoxes

As far as ‘modern’ logical theories of vagueness are concerned, a main distinction can be drawn between ‘semantical’ ones and ‘pragmatical’ ones. The latter are defended here, because they tend to retake into account important contextual dimensions of the problem abandoned by the former. Their inchoate condition seems not alarming, since they are of surprisingly recent date. This, however, could very well be an accidental explanation. That is, the true reason for it might sooner or later turn out to be bearing exactly on the fundamental human limitations, when it comes to theorizing, that these approaches are urging us to appreciate

Strict finitism, feasibility, and the sorites

This paper bears on four topics: observational predicates and phenomenal properties, vagueness, strict finitism as a philosophy of mathematics, and the analysis of feasible computability. It is argued that reactions to strict finitism point towards a seman- tics for vague predicates in the form of nonstandard models of weak arithmetical theories of the sort originally introduced to characterize the notion of feasibility as understood in computational complexity theory. The approach described eschews the use of non-classical logic and related devices like degrees of truth or supervaluation. Like epistemic approaches to vagueness, it may thus be smoothly integrated with the use of classical model theory as widely employed in natural language semantics. But unlike epistemicism, the described approach fails to imply either the existence of sharp boundaries or the failure of tolerance for soritical predicates. Applications of measurement theory (in the sense of Krantz et al. 1971) to vagueness in the nonstandard setting are also explored

Strict finitism as a foundation for mathematics

The principal focus of this research is a comprehensive defence of the theory of strict finitism as a foundation for mathematics. I have three broad aims in the thesis; firstly, to offer as complete and developed account of the theory of strict finitism as it has been described and discussed in the literature. I detail the commitments and claims of the theory, and discuss the best ways in which to present the theory. Secondly, I consider the main objections to strict finitism, in particular a number of claims that have been made to the effect that strict finitism is, as it stands, incoherent. Many of these claims I reject, but one, which focuses on the problematic notion of vagueness to which the strict finites seems committed, I suggest, calls for some revision or further development of the strict finitist’s position. The third part of this thesis is therefore concerned with such development, and I discuss various options for strict finitism, ranging from the development of a trivalent semantic, to a rejection of the commitment to vagueness in the first instance

Multivalued Logic, Neutrosophy and Schrodinger equation

This book was intended to discuss some paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics from the viewpoint of Multi-Valued-logic pioneered by Lukasiewicz, and a recent concept Neutrosophic Logic. Essentially, this new concept offers new insights on the idea of ‘identity’, which too often it has been accepted as given. Neutrosophy itself was developed in attempt to generalize Fuzzy-Logic introduced by L. Zadeh. While some aspects of theoretical foundations of logic are discussed, this book is not intended solely for pure mathematicians, but instead for physicists in the hope that some of ideas presented herein will be found useful. The book is motivated by observation that despite almost eight decades, there is indication that some of those paradoxes known in Quantum Physics are not yet solved. In our knowledge, this is because the solution of those paradoxes requires re-examination of the foundations of logic itself, in particular on the notion of identity and multi-valuedness of entity. The book is also intended for young physicist fellows who think that somewhere there should be a ‘complete’ explanation of these paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics. If this book doesn’t answer all of their questions, it is our hope that at least it offers a new alternative viewpoint for these old questions