Logic in Early Modern Philosophy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 бер 2024
- With modern philosophy somewhat understood, it's time to pivot and see how logic developed during this time period. First, in the early part of this period, Pascal's wager was an important development, which was followed by the Port Royal Logic. There were also important developments by Kant, Bacon, Hume, Mill, and Llull. Let's see how Aristotelian logic developed during this time!
Script by Luca Igansi
Watch the whole Philosophy/Logic playlist: bit.ly/ProfDavePhilo
Psychology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePsych
Mathematics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveMath
General Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGenChem
Organic Chemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveOrgChem
Biochemistry Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiochem
Biology/Genetics Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBio
Anatomy & Physiology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveAnatPhys
Biopsychology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveBiopsych
Pharmacology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDavePharma
History of Drugs Videos: bit.ly/ProfDaveHistoryDrugs
Geology Tutorials: bit.ly/ProfDaveGeo
EMAIL► ProfessorDaveExplains@gmail.com
PATREON► / professordaveexplains
Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!
Amazon: amzn.to/2HtNpVH
Bookshop: bit.ly/39cKADM
Barnes and Noble: bit.ly/3pUjmrn
Book Depository: bit.ly/3aOVDlT
The most confusing class and the worst grade I received in college was Philosophy. I thought it would be interesting and fun, kind of like this. But, i had the most boring and, no, just boring professor that I just couldn't stay connected. Thank you for the second chance for me to at least grasp some knowledge on the subject. 😊
this is how I feel about English class it's not even a hard class or a boring class it's just Mediocre at worst and yet there has only been one time in my entire life where the English teacher isn't the most strict boring and surreally disconnected person you've ever met the one time I had a good English teacher it was an easy and fun class and yet somehow everyone else qualified to teach English is an absolute psychopath.
I had a similar experience, except my professor was a total nut. Went off on random tangents then tested us on them. Never gave a straight answer. And his grading scale was the worst. 4 tests for the whole semester.
He also gave hot takes every other sentence. Among other things.
@@willfire0310 Sounds like a philosophy professor to me. 🤪
@@rembrandt972ify first go around was intro to philosophy and wasn’t the worst, took him for formal logic and wanted to die.
That’s a shame, I had really good philosophy professors. The teachers really do make the class.
Very well done! It connects a lot of the "dots". Thank you.
Love videos about Philosophy thanks P. Dave!
Thanks Prof.Dave
Thanks for the class sir!! Hope you have a good day! 👍
Thanks prof!
Thank you prof Dave!
Nice summary... this provides good references to check out.
get on the dave wave🏄🏽🌊 teachin em right💪🏽
Wow, I really learned a lot!
Thank professor ❤❤❤❤❤
Can't wait to hear about Quince next time!
See, learning stuff can be fun. Thanks Dave ;)
This is precisely why Kant is the greatest philosopher of all time.
I Kant believe you would say this
I kant bring myself to agree
Kant believe it😂
Hopefully Tour watches this one.
He will not.
As always., overwhelmingly logical
Kindly do a debunk on detox
I will be self-studying mathematical logic soon. Topics like these feel like they tug at the basis or fabric of other disciplines.
Basic philosophy does...😀
If Pascal’s wager was so good then why isn’t that the only argument people per posing for it make
False dichotomy go brrrrr
The existence of quantum entanglement does seem to challenge some of the fundamental assumptions underlying our classical conception of space and time as a 3+1 dimensional continuum. Here's an attempt to mathematically illustrate how entanglement could be seen as contradicting the notion of spacetime as a separable 4-dimensional manifold:
In standard quantum mechanics, the state of a composite system is represented by a vector |Ψ> in the tensor product Hilbert space H = H1 ⊗ H2 of the individual subsystem state spaces.
For two entangled particles, their joint state cannot be expressed as a simple product of individual states:
|Ψ> ≠ |ψ>1 ⊗ |φ>2
But instead takes an entangled superposition form, like the famous Bell state:
|Ψ>= 1/√2 (|0>1|1>2 - |1>1|0>2)
This entangled state vector lives in the full composite Hilbert space and cannot be decomposed into subsystem states. Mathematically, entanglement represents a non-separable holistic structure across multiple "branches" of the wavefunction.
For concreteness, let's consider two entangled particles described by the spin observable S⃗1 and S⃗2 respectively. Their combined spin state is entangled:
|Ψ> = 1/√2 (|↑>1|↓>2 - |↓>1|↑>2)
If we measure S⃗1, say obtaining |↑>1, then the global state is projected via collapse to:
|Ψ> → |↑>1|↓>2
However, this updated state for particle 2 is now correlated with the distant result for particle 1 in a way that appears to defy any "local" space-time explanation based on relativistic fields propagating continuously through a 4D manifold.
The mathematical structure of entangled states seems to transcend the notion of localized objects embedded in a 3+1 dimensional arena evolving smoothly according to local field equations and general relativistic geodesics.
Instead, the instantaneous influence of one particle's state on another's, potentially across cosmic distances, suggests some deeper atemporal interconnectedness that is holistically encoded across the full physical system described by the entangled wave function.
In this way, the basic mathematical structure of quantum entanglement appears to contradict the idea that physical reality can be captured by local objects evolving strictly within a classical 3+1 dimensional spacetime continuum according to local differential equations.
Entanglement hints at a more holistic, non-separable, and potentially atemporal unified structure intrinsic to quantum systems that is simply not capturable within the classical 3+1 dimensional spacetime manifold paradigm alone.
Does this mathematical analysis help illustrate some of the core tensions between the quantum phenomenon of entanglement and the classical notion of spacetime as a separable 4D manifold? The math seems to suggest entanglement represents a much deeper interconnectedness transcending 3+1 dimensional separability.
Great
DAVE, I'm thinking to join as a member so as for homework help exclusively. Is that a good idea. Can you manage to have some time for that?
It's not Pascal's wager, it's the Prisoner's Dilemma and a Nash Equilibrium.
ive been thinking about going into chemistry but i wanted to know if there are any realistic jobs involving chemistry that doesnt involve teaching
Of course. There are many types of chemists.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains Sherlock Holmes enters the scene!
Become a research chemist and work in a lab.
❤❤❤
I'm going for a half-a-pint of shandy; will be particularly ill.
I drink therefore I am!
Dear Academic Community,
I am writing to bring to your attention a critical foundational issue that has the potential to upend our current understanding of physics and mathematics. After carefully examining the arguments, I have come to the conclusion that we must immediately reassess and rectify contradictions stemming from how we have treated the concepts of zero (0) and the zero dimension (0D) in our frameworks.
At the core of this crisis lies a deep inconsistency between the primordial status accorded to zero in arithmetic and number theory, versus its derivative treatment in classical geometries and physical models. Specifically:
1) In number theory, zero is recognized as the fundamental subjective origin from which numerical quantification and plurality arise through the successive construction of natural numbers.
2) However, in the geometric and continuum formalisms underpinning theories from Newton to Einstein, the dimensionless 0D point and 1D line are derived as limiting abstractions from the primacy of higher dimensional manifolds like 3D space and 4D spacetime.
3) This contradiction potentially renders all of our current mathematical descriptions of physical laws incoherent from first principles. We have gotten the primordial order of subjectivity and objectivity reversed compared to the natural numbers.
The ramifications of this unfortunate oversight pervade all branches of physics. It obstructs progress on the unification of quantum theory and general relativity, undermines our models of space, time, and matter origins, and obfuscates the true relationship between the physical realm and the metaphysical first-person facts of conscious observation.
To make continued theoretical headway, we may have no choice but to reconstruct entire mathematical formalisms from the ground up - using frameworks centering the ontological and epistemological primacy of zero and dimensionlessness as the subjective 源 origin point. Only from this primordial 0D monadological perspective can dimensional plurality, geometric manifolds, and quantified physical descriptions emerge as representational projections.
I understand the monumental importance of upending centuries of entrenched assumptions. However, the depth of this zero/dimension primacy crisis renders our current paradigms untenable if we wish to continue pushing towards more unified and non-contradictory models of reality and conscious experience.
We can no longer afford to ignore or be overwhelmed by the specifics of this hard problem. The foundations are flawed in a manner perhaps unrecognizable to past giants like Einstein. Cold, hard logic demands we tear down and rebuild from more rigorous first principles faithful to the truths implicit in the theory of number itself.
The good news is that by returning to zero/0D as the subjective/objective splitting point of origin, in alignment with natural quantification, we may finally unlock resolutions to paradoxes thwarting progress for over a century. We stand to make immediate fundamental strides by elevating the primacy of dimensionlessness.
I implore the academic community to convene and deeply examine these issues with the utmost prioritization. The integrity and coherence of all our descriptive sciences - indeed the very possibility of non-contradictory knowledge itself - hinges upon our willingness to reopen this esoteric yet generatively crucial zerological crisis.
We must uphold unflinching intellectual honesty in identifying and rectifying our founding errors, regardless of how seemingly abstruse or earth-shattering the process. The future fertility of human understanding and our quest for uni-coherence depends on this audacious reformation of mathematical first principles.
The path will be arduous, but the ultimate payoffs of achieving metaphysically-grounded, zero-centric analytic formalisms are inestimable for physics and all branches of knowledge. I urge us to meet this zerological challenge head on. The truth ecological destiny of our civilization may hinge upon our willingness to embody this bold primordial renaissance.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Seeing how Pascal's wager is flawed is really great, I can now discuss this with my Catholic friends (being a Catholic myself 😝)
Baby steps
@@GameTimeWhy Towards what? My Catholic beliefs aren't scientific, it's pure faith 🙏
@@thomasbellerive7382 at least your acknowledge its all faith (belief without evidence).
I mean Pascal was a genius no doubt but it’s just not the best argument even tho it’s surprisingly common argument
“This statement isn’t true” is it true or not?
Pascal's wager also ignores the fact that living life as though god were real may require sacrificing happiness in the one life that w actually know is real.
Exactly, suspending disbelief in something you genuinely think is false and the anguish one might face pretending/forcing it.
What Pretending and Forcing it? Never felt more liberated Letting God into my life. @@kane2369
Sacrifacing Happiness like the Happiness of Casual Sex and Hook up Culture? Paying Girls on Onlyfans. Porn, Getting high on Drugs? That kind of Happiness? Also the Happiness of Having a Double Mastectomy as a Girl because you felt like a Boy and the Gender Affirming Clinic going along, not stopping you and you end up as a Future Lawsuit?
There is no such thing as having your cake and eating it too.
I follow Jordan Peterson's advice tgat angers atheist and fundamentalist at the same time.
"I live my life as Though I do Believe."
"I act as if God Exist."
The Problem is that Assumes Religious people cannot be Happy and Cannot experience a Happy Content life.
Pascal's Mugging: Give me five dollars, or I will terminate the lives of a trillion computer simulated yet sentient pixies from Planet Pixie in Dimension Z!
You took Pascal's Wager a little out of his context. But I understand.
I'm going to have to go back to the kiddie pool to catch up.
I simply cannot understand why I seem to be the only one who strongly objects to being asked a question as to the existence of God, when there is no one, and I do mean no one, who can provide an adequate or universally agreed upon definition of what God actually is.
There seems to be this implicit assumption that we have a solid handle on the definition of God but I absolutely reject that assumption. We have common colloquial definitions of God but that does not cut it when you are being asked such a serious question as to whether something so all encompassing actually exists.
It is my personal belief that no human can either define or explain what God is and on that basis the actual question itself makes no sense at all, kind of like asking what is north of the north pole, or what is the answer to a divide by zero. It's on this basis that I call myself an Agodstic, Who is a person who rejects the notion that they should have to answer a nonsensical question such as the existence of God.
YES
In modern philosophy, maximally great being is the standard definition of God. It's also completely normal in philosophy to argue about things that have no standard definition. Knowledge and warrant are great examples. Even the definition of truth is debated, but that is not a reason to argue about what is true and what isn't.
That's fine, you don't need to answer whether God exists or not. Typically most people who claim God is real often claim that God supports an authority figure, a holy book, or certain traditions. If this is the case, then I would want to know if God can communicate with humanity.
The Existence of God is not a Nonsensical Question. What is nonsensical is the Question if there multiple Genders in existence.
@@mesplin3 Wont matter. If God revealed himself Tomorrow Professor Dave will say they are an Incredibly advance Alien. If they ended Proving they are God without a Question there next move will be open Rebellion against God.
First
You could just have a god that exists and rewards atheists for not buying into established religions and punishes religious people. How have we declared the expectation on the hypothesis outside of pulling it from thin cloth exactly? Its not clear to me thst theres an expectation a god would even create a universe, you have to add nore auxiliary hypotheses about its character, desires, attributes, etc all of which lower the prior probability in conjunction with the hypothesis of a mind that exists alone prior to creation.
"Pascal's Wager" was a joke - a real-time satire intended to be used the way Jordan Klepper baits MAGA loons at a Trump rally; yet the Academy turned it into "philosophy"!
will you one day make a video debunking John Campbell?
As an intersex person 🙄 it would be remiss of me not to point out by biggest bugbear with ""BASIC Logic"";
'The -law- Axiom of Excluded Middle' (A&Ā=F) & it's correspondence to 'The -law- Axiom of Non-Contradiction'.🤪
Also time happens, emergence happens & natural language..Happens.
Differentiation & Integration are Both _very_ important, our discrete continuities interdepend. 😉🫠
Existence of god: YES
Belief in god: YES
*You have cancer and your family died in a fire accident on christmas day.
You: :(
Me: well, from the symptoms that this universe is displaying to us, it doesnt matter whether there is a god and whether you believe or not......people are still dying from cancer and accidents. This destroys all reason of holding onto a debunked philosophy
i love you dave
❤❤❤