Philosophy Now Forum

If you disagree with me than you are disagreeing that an expression of language derived from valid inference applied to true premises is necessarily true. In other words disagreeing with me is disagreeing with sound deductive inference. Anything outside the boundaries of [sound deductive inference]...

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2019 3:20 pm I don't have any gap in my understanding.

I guess we will continue to disagree then.

I will leave this video here, should you decide to re-evaluate your stance.

Proof Theory Foundations

I guess the criterion is rather simple: Do these people make any explicit and unambiguous claim to be working on human logic? Why do they have to be explicit about it? Logic (studying or applying) is a profoundly human activity and so I cannot think of any other kinds of logic. Could you give me an...

Study of what we can know , epistemology, fits closely with both artificial intelligence science, and modern biology. If everything can be thought of as a process one needs to ask only these two question: * Is "learning" the process of "acquiring knowledge"? * How does "lea...

Logic is metaphysics Abstract . Analyzing the position of two philosophers whose views are recognizably divergent, W. O. Quine and M. Dummett, we intend to support a striking point of agreement between them: the idea that our logical principles constitute our principles about what thereis, and ther...

Being human is irrelevant to my point, though. Rather, it is whether you work on logic explicitly as a human capacity or on logic as the logic of some toaster you like. Would you say that working on the foundations of Logic meets your criterion for "working on logic as a human capacity"? ...

Logik and I had a fundamental disagreement in that he believed that 1=0 and could not be convinced otherwise. And now that I am back I can simply ask: What do you mean by "equals"? I am not alone in asking this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfDcrN5_1wA&t=42s Firstly, becau...

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 10:23 pm I don't pay the $50 for the SSL certificate for my Wordpress site.

https://letsencrypt.org/

That's probably all very interesting but I don't see where your reply connects with the crucial point in my post, that of logic as a human capacity. I am not sure I see the disconnect you see. Are Frege, Boole, Russel and Voyevodsky not human? In what capacity (if not human) would you say they were...

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 6:03 am Science is empirical and logic is analytical.

Machine learning algorithms are empirical.

Mathematicians make sure their theories are logically consistent. I forgot to address this particular point. The current definition of "inconsistency" is any logical/mathematical system in which one can prove both P and ¬P, but Voevodsky dares to go where no Mathematicians and Logician si...

It depends... The closest you will get to is proof theory which attempts to unify the efforts of logicians, mathematicians and computer scientists. The basic ideas of proof theory are covered in this introductory video . Some of the ideas discussed above are similarly observed by Robert Harper in th...