390 research outputs found
The Babelogic of Mathematics
How would the Bible written about a Mathematical God start, describing the Creation of Mathematics and Logic? How would Rigveda\u27s Nasadiya sukta read if it were describing the Void before mathematics was born ? Here is an attempt at a partial answer, one which takes the original Genesis chapter and the Nasadiya sukta and makes suitable changes to create a fairly consistent, if somewhat anachronistic narrative (with the slight mixing up of Bertrand Russell and Lobachevsky / Bolyai attributable to Babelogic ), along with a new ending to the Beginning..
What Do Paraconsistent, Undecidable, Random, Computable and Incomplete mean? A Review of Godel's Way: Exploits into an undecidable world by Gregory Chaitin, Francisco A Doria, Newton C.A. da Costa 160p (2012) (review revised 2019)
In ‘Godel’s Way’ three eminent scientists discuss issues such as undecidability, incompleteness, randomness, computability and paraconsistency. I approach these issues from the Wittgensteinian viewpoint that there are two basic issues which have completely different solutions. There are the scientific or empirical issues, which are facts about the world that need to be investigated observationally and philosophical issues as to how language can be used intelligibly (which include certain questions in mathematics and logic), which need to be decided by looking at how we actually use words in particular contexts. When we get clear about which language game we are playing, these topics are seen to be ordinary scientific and mathematical questions like any others. Wittgenstein’s insights have seldom been equaled and never surpassed and are as pertinent today as they were 80 years ago when he dictated the Blue and Brown Books. In spite of its failings—really a series of notes rather than a finished book—this is a unique source of the work of these three famous scholars who have been working at the bleeding edges of physics, math and philosophy for over half a century. Da Costa and Doria are cited by Wolpert (see below or my articles on Wolpert and my review of Yanofsky’s ‘The Outer Limits of Reason’) since they wrote on universal computation, and among his many accomplishments, Da Costa is a pioneer in paraconsistency.
Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019
Review of 'The Outer Limits of Reason' by Noson Yanofsky 403p (2013) (review revised 2019)
I give a detailed review of 'The Outer Limits of Reason' by Noson Yanofsky from a unified perspective of Wittgenstein and evolutionary psychology. I indicate that the difficulty with such issues as paradox in language and math, incompleteness, undecidability, computability, the brain and the universe as computers etc., all arise from the failure to look carefully at our use of language in the appropriate context and hence the failure to separate issues of scientific fact from issues of how language works. I discuss Wittgenstein's views on incompleteness, paraconsistency and undecidability and the work of Wolpert on the limits to computation. To sum it up: The Universe According to Brooklyn---Good Science, Not So Good Philosophy.
Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019
Leibniz's Infinitesimals: Their Fictionality, Their Modern Implementations, And Their Foes From Berkeley To Russell And Beyond
Many historians of the calculus deny significant continuity between
infinitesimal calculus of the 17th century and 20th century developments such
as Robinson's theory. Robinson's hyperreals, while providing a consistent
theory of infinitesimals, require the resources of modern logic; thus many
commentators are comfortable denying a historical continuity. A notable
exception is Robinson himself, whose identification with the Leibnizian
tradition inspired Lakatos, Laugwitz, and others to consider the history of the
infinitesimal in a more favorable light. Inspite of his Leibnizian sympathies,
Robinson regards Berkeley's criticisms of the infinitesimal calculus as aptly
demonstrating the inconsistency of reasoning with historical infinitesimal
magnitudes. We argue that Robinson, among others, overestimates the force of
Berkeley's criticisms, by underestimating the mathematical and philosophical
resources available to Leibniz. Leibniz's infinitesimals are fictions, not
logical fictions, as Ishiguro proposed, but rather pure fictions, like
imaginaries, which are not eliminable by some syncategorematic paraphrase. We
argue that Leibniz's defense of infinitesimals is more firmly grounded than
Berkeley's criticism thereof. We show, moreover, that Leibniz's system for
differential calculus was free of logical fallacies. Our argument strengthens
the conception of modern infinitesimals as a development of Leibniz's strategy
of relating inassignable to assignable quantities by means of his
transcendental law of homogeneity.Comment: 69 pages, 3 figure
- …