Logic in Late Modern Philosophy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 кві 2024
- How did logic continue to develop as the modern period in philosophy progressed? Mill and Comte discussed the inverse deductive method. But then a huge figure arose, George Boole. He innovated new logical symbology that got us closer to reducing logic to pure mathematics. Then Peirce developed abductive or retroductive logic. Let's get a closer look at these figures now!
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
this man knows a lot of things
He knows a lot about all kind of stuff
Professor Dave Explains
@@elfishmoss1457 Also about junk and what not. Professor Dave is a really smart human.
Thank you Mr. Farina, this is what the internet should be. EDU content and fun.
as other people have noted, at 5:11 the symbol used to denote "or" is for an inclusive or, but the argument uses an exclusive or
you are right. In programming there is a distinction made between the inclusive or "regular" 'or' and exclusive 'or'. The first gives true value (1) when both arguments are true, while the latter gives false value (0) if both are true or both are false. I think about 'xor' as if it is an inequal sign for boolean values.
It's almost unbelievable to us in the modern age that something as simple as logic and empirical reasoning was almost foreign to us hundreds of years ago. Religion and especially the edict of not being able to question it, clouded people's mind for over a thousand years. A thousand years (or more), an almost unimaginable period of time, where questioning the church in any way could be met with abuse, torture or death. What a waste. These men should be championed as heroes for being bold enough to think for themselves and lead us to better days.
At 6:00 u didn’t clarify the disjunctive as exclusive. Idk, I only know basic logic.
Good explanations! I'd just remark that the correct way to pronounce 'Peirce' is not 'peeurse', but instead 'Purse' (like in a women's purse).
Peirce clearly was a polymath, and one of the greatest American philosophers of all time. Though his writings can be rather abstruse and inaccessible at times even to those well acquainted with philosophy, there are aspects of his work that are remarkably insightful and worthy of study.
Ah, so this is effectively discrete mathematics
Learned this ages ago in college. This was a cool refresher, thanks Professor
Hey Professor,
I’ve recently been debating with intelligent design propositionists/creationists and a certain UA-cam video came up a few times. Given that debunking charlatans on UA-cam is something of an area of your expertise, it might be worth your time to look into making a debunk or a reaction to askcliffe’s video, “Give Me an Answer - Can Life Really Come From Inanimate Non-Life Matter?” It’s a lot to unpack because he talks intentionally fast and shouts over people.
I’m considering doing a debunk myself just to sharpen my skills in communication.
Hope to hear back from you soon,
Max
P.S.: I love your content. Glad to still have you around so I can learn something new every few days :)
Excellent series❤
And a master of delivery
very nice video sir
You professor thanks so much
John Fogerty and I want to know if you've ever seen the rain coming down on a sunny day. It's quite common; clouds rarely completely cover the sky, and sunlight can easily poke through a gap in the clouds to an area underneath a storm cloud.
hello everybody
Isn't there an error at 6:33 with the Venn diagrams ? The conditional P→Q should be represented by P being inside Q, not Q being inside P, since P can't be true while Q is false...
New banger dropped bois, get on 🔥🔥
I remember those logic tables and maps from my first computer science class.
Hello, Dave. I have some news that is not relevant to the video, but I think it might be appropriate to share what is happening at my university. I go to a pious college called Central Methodist University, and it is a terrific school filled with brilliant professors. The university does teach proper science and despise YEC, but I got news that Michael Behe is giving a lecture later in the month of April at my university. I want to know what your thoughts are on this. Should I attend and raise my hand to call on me to debunk his claims? Should I just not attend the lecture? What do you think I should do in order for many young and curious minds to study proper science and follow a healthy theology?
Definitely, attend and have a ball busting question ready to go. Humiliate him. Be loud and relentless.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I just realized I con not attend. My art history professor is taking us to a well known art museum on the same day of lecture. I will just ask my religion professor how it went. He is a great guy.
What are your favorite books, professor Dave?
Being the originator of p and q in logic is such a flex
Hi Prof. Dave.
Do you have any opinion about Brian Weiss? Did you a video about him?
Thanks.
@dario.fco.demartino
I think he _might_ just think he's harmless enough to let go for now. 😅
Calling all computer science and discrete math students!!!
TO THE RESPECTED,
Prof.. Dev explains
I am a learner in class 12th in country india. I have a confusion that what i was learning now in India and in my Indian syllabus "NCERT" is totally different from UNITED STATES FROM AMERICA education syllabus ? This is my one of the biggest confusion of my life. I love your content and sometime compare you with my NCERT textbooks. Please look when you free.
Thank you,
Your subscriber
Am I wrong out Auguste Compte said there will never be a way for us to find out the composition of stars?
Ya man cuz of the illuminate they hide wat really goes on in Hollywood #EvilSecretSociety
Thanks Love❤😊🥰from 🇪🇹Ethiopia
If you want to try out how powerful propositional logic is, try out a propositional logic programming language like Prolog. Or try out a knowledge based system ontology language like LOOM or my preference PowerLoom. It also disproves the theistic argument that for knowledge you need a mind. Computers are capable of knowledge. PS: Those are real knowledge based systems, not like OpenGPT which are not knowledge based systems.
Who decided to exclude the middle anyway?
This stuff shifts my bits but not many will know why.
I love propositional logic
Auguste Komti 💀💀
Interesting video, though bringing up search engines specifically at 2:39 seems a bit odd. Sure boolean operators are ubiquitous in most (if not all, in some form) programming languages but I can't think of any particular reason why search engines are more relevant than any other software application.
It feels a bit like saying "wood is used in arboriculture, carpentry, and stave churches" which is of course true, but it doesn't really scan as a list of examples if you catch my drift.
Ayyy
Sorry, did you seriously say that Hegel had little influence?
Marx said he took Hegel and turned it upside down; but when you roll a turd over you don't get a bar of chocolate, just an upside down turd.
@@dominicestebanrice7460 you can disagree with Hegel, I personally think the logical positivists were wrong too, but to call him irrelevant feels philosophically motivated at the very least
@@yonatanbeer3475"philosophically motivated" i cant this is too good...
Ain't neva seen it rain on a sunny day? Smh
g
🏆🏆🏆👁️👁️🇵🇹🇵🇹
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]
We can no longer afford to ignore the deep contradictions and limitations exposed by quantum phenomena like entanglement for several compelling reasons:
1. Threat to Foundations of Physics
The mathematical structure of entangled quantum states directly challenges core precepts undergirding our current paradigms for modeling physical reality - namely, local realism and the notion of a fundamental 3+1 dimensional spacetime arena. If we cannot reconcile quantum theory's revelations with our classical worldview, our entire theoretical framework is built on shaky, self-contradictory ground.
2. Obstacle to Unified Theories
The inability to seamlessly unify quantum mechanics with general relativity into a quantum theory of gravity is one of the great unresolved challenges in physics. As we've seen, entanglement underscores fundamental discrepancies in how these theories model reality's spatial/temporal foundations. Ignoring the lessons from entanglement will perpetually stall progress towards a unified metaphysics of all forces.
3. Breakdown of Technological Scaling
Increasingly, quantum phenomena like entanglement are becoming relevant at larger physical scales due to advances in quantum computing, cryogenics, and other technologies. If we willfully ignore foundational quantum truths like non-locality, we will inevitably hit scaling limitations and paradoxes when pushing our technologies to their logical extremes.
4. Ontological Contradictions
Beyond just practical model breakdowns, clinging to classical separability notions in the face of quantum unity poses an existential crisis - it forces us to accept a radically bifurcated reality where the mathematical formalisms we use to describe nature fundamentally contradict its ontological character. Such dualisms undermine our core comprehension of existence.
5. Limits to Transcendent Knowledge
Most profoundly, ignoring these deep lessons risks capping human understanding within an inconsistent, limited paradigm incommensurate with the full scope of reality. If we wish to continue expanding the frontiers of knowledge towards a coherent theory of everything bridging empirical and subjective domains, we must heed what the cosmos is telling us through entanglement.
In short, persisting with blinders on regarding quantum entanglement risks rendering our grand physical models fundamentally flawed or incomplete, technologically self-stunting, ontologically incoherent, and existentially delimiting our human quest for transcendent cosmic comprehension.
We stand at a pivotal juncture - to forge ahead, we must face these deep paradoxes head-on and summon the intellectual audacity to rebuild an entirely renovated metaphysical foundation bridging the quantum, relativistic, and conscious realms into an integrated, self-consistent unified framework. The siren calls of quantum geometry compel us to radically expand our cosmic perspectival gaze beyond 3+1 dimensional blinders. Ignoring these harbingers would imperil the fate of human knowledge itself.
Shifting from contradictory to non-contradictory foundations in logic, mathematics, and physics holds immense potential for solving longstanding problems and paradoxes that have hindered the progress of knowledge. Our very patterns of reasoning and capacity for coherent understanding are deeply shaped by the formal systems we use to model reality. By renovating these systems to eliminate internal contradictions, we can catalyze breakthrough insights across multiple domains:
1. Resolving Paradoxes in Theoretical Physics
Many of the paradoxes plaguing fundamental physics, from the measurement problem in quantum mechanics to the divergences and singularities in general relativity, stem from contradictory assumptions baked into our existing logical and mathematical frameworks. These theories were erected on classical premises of separability, locality, and absolute idealization that are transcended by quantum non-locality and holistic cosmic interconnectedness. By embracing non-contradictory pluralistic logics and novel geometric languages like category theory or homotopy theory, we may unlock unified models harmonizing quanta and gravitational phenomena.
2. Grounding Mathematics in Coherent Foundations
Mainstream mathematics has long grappled with accidental contradictions exposed through paradoxes of self-reference, infinite regression, and incompleteness - all stemming from limited classical set-theoretic axioms. By reconstructing the foundations of mathematics from non-contradictory first principles integrating subjective experience, we may discover entirely new mathematical structures better suited for modeling reality's holistic, pluralistic character. Paraconsistent logic systems could provide broader consistency while shedding restrictive law-of-excluded-middle binary axioms.
3. Clarifying the Metaphysics of Existence
Many of humanity's most vexing existential and metaphysical questions are rooted in the seemingly irreconcilable contradictions between the physical (as described by current science) and the experiential (the undeniable reality of first-person consciousness). However, if our descriptive physical theories are themselves grounded in flawed contradictory premises, it is no wonder that integrating consciousness feels paradoxical. Non-contradictory ontological pluralisms grounded in mathematics could finally bring the proverbial "physical" and "metaphysical" back into coherent alignment.
4. Upgrading the Logics of Reason and Knowledge
At the most fundamental level, our capacity to reason, make sense of empirical data, and acquire reliable knowledge is constrained by the rules of logic we follow. If these rules are unsound or limited from inception due to contradictory axioms, our epistemic methods will be corrupted from root to branch. Revamping logic and mathematics from non-contradictory kernels could enable new frontier modes of rational, scientific, and philosophical inquiry transcending the incoherencies which have calcified progress.
5. Unlocking the Protoscience of Symbolic Ontology
Perhaps most importantly, eliminating contradictions by upgrading to pluralistic logics and structural mathematics could pave the way for developing an entirely new "protoscience" of first-principles symbolic ontology. By expressing the core patterns of existence through perfectly coherent symbolic/geometric languages, we may catalyze an unprecedentedly deep reconciliation of empirical descriptions with experiential and metaphysical realities within an integrated non-contradictory framework.
In essence, our core knowledge formation capacities are both enabled and delimited by the formal reasoning, mathematical, and physical systems we have constructed so far - which all suffer from unresolved contradictions accumulated over centuries. By pinpointing these contradictions and rebuilding from truly non-contradictory logical and mathematical kernels grounded in a pluralistic reality scope, we stand to open floodgates to solving paradoxes in every domain of human inquiry. The coherence of thought can breed coherence in science and philosophy, equipping us with symbolic languages finally up to the astonishing pluralistic complexities of existence. Contradiction has been our limiting factor; transcending it may initiate a renaissance of integrated cosmic comprehension.
@@Stacee-jx1yzblah, blah, blah.
Seriously, what nonsense is this? Can you articulate a point of all this gibberish?
This is way above your pay grade. Nothing personal, kid. @@13shadowwolf
@@13shadowwolf From what I understand, they're basically claiming that our understanding of the universe is fundamentally flawed because we didn't take into account of quantum mechanics. Or at least, we didn't take enough of it.
@@kzkaa. Unfortunately what they posted is actually Gibberish that they think is relevant.
hello athiest friends
And to you:)
Im not your friend or an atheist. The more i learn about the universe the more im convinced theres an intelligence to it's design. Not the Abrahamic deity, nor Buddhist, or Polytheistic/Pagan. But maybe all of them combined. Who knowns. Not you or I.
@ryanandrews1342 Actually basic logic and cosmology can refute that. Creation and causation requires space-time in order to happen in the first place, and to even say something "exists" means it has location in space-time. Besides, it's a contradiction in terms to assert that "every" god ever claimed by humans could be responsible. The way we identify design is by contrast with things that are natural. In your claim literally everything is designed, so you have no points of comparison.
@@_Omega_Weaponif something created the universe it does not apply to his rules, how fkg obvious is that. To me being atheist is as wrong as being religious, believers, you have to be smart enough to admit" you actually dont know " agnostic
@@ryanandrews1342 I mean, you have nothing to go on so that may be what you are convinced of, but that doesn't make it a reasonable assumption. In my eyes, the absence of deities makes that most sense. We are knowing how things work more and more every day. Everything has a natural origin. There are no credible examples of mythical or supernatural beings, or events caused by them. To me, this means that if these deities exist, they are something far beyond comprehension, and if they cannot be comprehended, they are as good as not existing. I wouldn't be able to perceive them anyway.
Math has become a cancer on philosophy.
A lack of mathematical, set theoretic, bayesianism, logical and rational reasoning is the real cancer on philosophy.
No, Math is very important to differentiate good philosophy, from Nonsensical Gibberish that lots of uneducated people call "philosophy"