John, Jerry, list
I feel utterly surprised. It never occurred to me that LEM could be
taken as a 'technical' term. - Thank you Jerry for correcting that
mistake.
The three basic assumtions of modern logic are, of course, intertwined.
If LEM is put questionable, the other two simultaneously begin to wave.
- Then fall.
Well, they do no fall. Rather what logically happens resembles what has
happened with classical mechanics (Newton etc. you know). It has never
been proven wrong, (which it is not), but it has been relativized. It
only applies within certain scales.
Peirce and his logic were not modern. They reach the time and scale
beyond modernity. Existential graphs and trichotomies do not show that.
It is possible to use those fluently without ever noticing any problems.
Everyone knows Einstein's relativity theory. But there are few who
understand it. Present day cosmology is attempting to make sense, to
understand & find empirical evidence in order to get a better
understanding.It is all about relativity theory.
Well, Peircean locic is all about relations and relativity. It is not
about naming things. As if they were always already out there to pick up
and see. Seeing just does not happen that way.
And to note: my name is NOT kirstima. I am not identical with my e-mail
address. I always sign my post with my name. Which is:
Kirsti
Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 15.10.2017 01:47:
List, John:
Comments on “technical” aspects of Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) are
inserted.
On Oct 12, 2017, at 3:15 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
Jerry and Kirstima,
Jerry
the issue of the "Law of the Excluded Middle” is a red herring to me.
Kirstima
LEM presents one of the three basic misassumptions in modern logic.
LEM is a convention used in a technical (mathematical) sense.
It's important to keep the conventions distinct from ordinary
(non-technical) uses of words.
LEM plays a central role in triad, the logic of logic, the logic of
mathematics and the logic of science. It is far more important then
just a notational convention or a traditional usage of a mathematic
symbol which is free to substitution for another symbol with the same
definition.
LEM has profound geometric inference for continuity.
Jerry
“Everything”, in my opinion, goes far beyond the ultra-simple notions
mathematical logic, mathematical formalisms, and physical units of
representations
Yes, of course. You have to keep technical terms in logic distinct
from words in ordinary language that are spelled the same.
???
My view is rather different, perhaps because economic considerations
are suppressed.
If the usage of a word is not that of ordinary language, then one is
obligated to distinguish the technical usage and explain to the reader
what it means. CSP was very careless in this area and, often, the
modern reader is very hard put to make any sense of his techno -
babble. At least, that is how I often feel. On the other side of the
coin, when CSP felt up to the task, he wrote many beautiful sentences
and paragraphs with a special brilliance that is seldom matched.
The term 'universe of discourse' is a technical term, which Boole
introduced in his famous book, _Laws of Thought_ (1854):
Now, whatever may be the extent of the field within which all the
objects of our discourse are found, that field may properly be termed
the universe of discourse. Furthermore, this universe of discourse
is in the strictest sense the ultimate subject of the discourse.
When Peirce was talking about logic, he followed the terminology
of Boole and de Morgen. It's important to remember that context.
I disagree.
CSP often stated that chemistry and chemical names were intrinsic to
his logical terminology.
If one is fluent in the logic of chemistry (as it developed in the
second half of the 19 th Century), then the augmentation of Boolean
and de Morgen terminology is readily apparent in the logic of
relatives. And in his development of his views on (non-mathematical?)
Graph Theory.
I agree that it is important to remember context, but this is possible
if and only if one is looking at at all possible interpretations of
“icons, indices and symbols” as used in the scientific community in
his age.
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 .
