Jerry, I haven't found it necessary to go beyond the logic that I was taught in University as an undergrad and graduate student, especially from Boolos, Church, Kalish and David Kaplan. From the former I learned set theory (which I later taught at Rice) in which arithmetic can be grounded (granted the incompleteness of both. From Kaplan I learned many-valued logic including three valued logic used by intuitionists and others who deny the excluded middle.
Incompleteness, undecidability and noncomputablity plays a major role in my dealings with nonreducible phenomena, and the application of information theory thereto, as well as to my work on causation and dynamical systems un general. To the best of my knowledge, the application (but not the logic) is novel. I do not see any way in which CSP's logic is at odds with contemporary logic, though contemporary logic has included much that he never thought of or just had primordial thoughts about. I agree that statistical methods are limited and are often misused, but I think, and have taught, that a proper understanding of the underlying logic can help to avoid this and help to put statistics in its proper place. My work on natural kinds makes use of intensional logic, but argues that once we understand the isssues we can dispense with mere possibilities in the science of the natual world. Since 1994 I have been on an effort to minimize my metaphysics, best represented in Every Thing Must Go, though I prefer what I call dynamical realism to structural realism. John Collier Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@mac.com] Sent: Friday, 03 February 2017 2:35 AM To: John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>; Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Cc: Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com>; Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism John, List: On Jan 31, 2017, at 1:05 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za<mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za>> wrote: 2. Now, for the most important comment. It is almost certain that CSP's notion of abduction as a method to generate a possibility space came directly from the concept of proof of structure. It follows from his notions of medads and graphic relations and relatives and the concept of variable valences of elements. The notion of abduction was a critical part of hybrid logic necessary to develop the simple algebra of labelled bipartite graph theory of the perplex number system. I would have to put this terminology into terms of contemporary logic to see if I agree with this. I suspect I do, but right now I reserve judgement. I think you are missing my point. The mathematical nature of chemical logic does not fit into the terms of contemporary logic, yet chemist make calculations involving millions of atoms. Why is that? Neither does the nature of CSP's logic fit into contemporary logic. Why? Your personal research contributes to understanding some aspects of this problem. The logic of natural sorts and kinds require numerical propositions that bridge the gap between the logics of physics and the logics of biology/medicine. Chemists developed methods to do calculations based on the atomic numbers. How does one formalize it? Given the nature of species and reproduction, it is fairly obvious that statistical methods are of limited utility for such perplex problems. That is one of my points. Cheers jerry
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
