Відео

Thank you, philosophy-David Tennant!

My thought listening to this is that the argument could take a hint from epistemology in science. Falsehood exists and we can make the infinite lists of falsehoods. Possible Truth is everything not on that list, so a two value logic of False and Maybe and it is just a list of sentences of the chalkboard again. Paradoxes can go in the maybe column.

Thanks , keep up the great work

Is this semantic tableaux (like in the Kelly book)?

So why the double negation of q at 6:26? I was expecting q,r,~p.

How about undecidable?

Music is distracting. It's like having music over the PA while in class or a band playing in the next classroom while the teach is speaking. Some people might like that. I pose you could get more views by having a music/no music option.

Dialetheism is an important response to this issue - & works well.

Limits of incompleteness would be helpful as a contextual & philosophical limit to these smaller statements.

Nominalism’s antithetical is Platonism rather than realism.

I have a question regarding this great video. Can you help me understand this a bit better? (¬B → ¬ A) → ((¬B → A) → B) I’ve tried substituting in some sentences for the variables, but it didn’t make sense so I must have messed up. This is what I tried B = I have a chessboard A = I can play chess From that I seem to get: If it is the case, that if (“if I don’t have a chessboard, then I can’t play chess”) → (“if I don’t have a chessboard then I can play chess”) → (“I can play chess.”) If it was (¬B → ¬ A) → ((¬B ∧ A) → B) Then I think I could get it to make sense. I know this is a lot to ask, but I would appreciate it very much if you could point out what I have misunderstood or misinterpreted. Thank you for a great video!

Great video

I know this is old, but I just face a bit of curiosity enticing me. It seems that these modal symbols have to do with the relational states instead of the state itself, (ie. Describes something about the states around it that are accessible).

How is the Liar paradox not a problem for any of the other theories? Assuming all these theories abide by binary (true vs false) logic.

Jesus stayed out of human politics. His main theme in the gospel account was the kingdom of God. Which is separate from human governments and politics. Stop trying to conflate the two. He stayed out of the Jewish rebellion against the Roman empire. He fled to the mountains when the Jews tried to make him king. He commanded his followers to pay taxes and to be good citizens but never encouraged them to get involved in human politics. He told us to pray for the Kingdom to come.... So until the Kingdom of God comes his followers should be imitating the example he set. Jesus was neither socialist or capitalist. He viewed himself as a citizen of Gods Kingdom and his true followers would do the same.

The thing is Socialism isnt only bound to Marxism and every other ideology which forwarded it. Theres so many schools of socialist thought which arent marxist at all like Gandhian socialism. So Jesus was definitely a socialist. Just not a marxist. Hope that makes sense lol

I really appreciate your work especially your logic series

Do you have a podcast?🥰

Since this is about axioms, I’m going to leave the axioms for a logic that I call “Weak Negation Logic”. This is for anyone to see and use. (A→B)→(C→(A→B)) (A→(B→C))→((A→B)→(A→C)) ((A→B)→C)→(¬C→¬B) ¬(A→A)→B (¬(A→B)→B)→(A→B) (A∧B)→A (A∧B)→B (A→B)→((A→C)→(A→(B∧C))) A→(A∨B) B→(A∨B) (A→C)→((B→C)→((A∨B) →C)) (A∧(B∨C))→((A∧B)∨(A∧C)) From A and (A→B), infer B. P.S., you can distinguish between positive literals and meta-variables, in which case you can change the first axiom to A→(B→A) where A is a positive literal or A=(C→D). I call this modified version “Non-Intuitionistic Logic”. These are both basically propositional S4, but with some modifications.

Will you be treating Critical Rationalism (Karl Popper's epistemoloogy) too ? It solves most of the problems with justified true belief epistemologies

Every axiom can easily be shown to be a tautology by truth tree or RAA. As always, sentences with 100 arrows can be more easily handled by applications of the Deduction Theorem, that is the "meanings" become far clearer when the forms are reduced to their Deduction Theorem equivalent sentences..

Why people don't use another letter for p→p? For example, P. Or p². Or I, for Identity. This way you avoid making mistakes, I guess. The proof becomes: p→(I→p) (p→(I→p))→((p→I)→I) p→(I→p) (p→I)→I p→I I Also, there is a missing parentheses here: 13:27 . Hahaha. It should be ... ((p→(p→p))→(p→p))

4:40 I don't read A→(B→A) like that. I interpret it like characterizing A as everything that implies A.

What do you think about Schrödinger logics?

I'm a philosophy teacher, did my master thesis on Wittgenstein, and I must say I never got the point of mathematical logic for philosophy (let alone the proof of p ---> p !). None of the great philosophical contributions I've read so far (including in contemporary analytical philosophy) ever needed heavy logical tools. I'm talking about classical philosophical topics: metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of action, philosophy of religion, etc. Should I feel, some day, that I miss all these technical tools, I'll invest some time in it, but until then it looks like a waste of time to me. Could maybe someone give a few examples of significant contributions in some classical fields of philosophical that wouldn't have been possible without axiomatic logic?

> a => b b | F B T --+------ a F | T T T B | F B T T | F F T

4:52 weakening is invalid 5:10 that longer one is valid, and it's not an axiom, you can compute it quite trivially

3:20 There's like a dozen "axioms" for RM3, and one of them is "mingle", where the M comes from, which they added because the mathematical structure they accidentally created already had that property. It's really much simpler than that. Modus Ponens is a theorem you can PROVE using Category Theory

#RM3 conjunction is left adjoint to implication --- but "truth" is replaced with "validity" --- The Liar is valid, it is both true and false.

Thank you. Also, I liked the brief mention of the Logical Positivists at the start, although given your area is logic, might be good to also explore the limits of axiomatic, indeed the limits of all sentence statements as a result of Gödel & the Incompleteness Theorem in some future presentations.

Please make some videos on Speech act theory 🙏🏻

His faith in logic rendered him dense. So sad.😊

Thank you so much, this really opened my eyes

Also, in regards to original sin as traditionally understood, Paul in Romans 5 seems to be talking about spiritual death (separation from God) rather than physical death.

Thanks a million for all your great videos! I appreciate the effort required.

ahhhhaaaaahhhhh!!

Sooooooo bloody helpful

🔥🔥🔥🔥

This channel is underrated.

In 1:50 you show a picture from Wittgensteins School, there are two persons marked. Wittgenstein to the left and Adolf Hitler to the right. Just wanted to mention this. How or if they influenced each other is very controversal but its interesting to think about it.

Hey, i know it have no relation with your video, but you have considerer talking about more rare or complex logic or authors, like Newton da Costa, and is paraconsistent logic for example, this guy is a beast, it will very interesting seen a video abaut it, i see very few people talking abaut it in anglo community, but in hispanic an latin lagic community, he is a big reference, or maybe de negationless logic of Griss, and the conception of negation in intuitionistic logic that is very interestinhg to, Greetings from Spain

I love you man

i feel like i now have a better idea of what ⊧ is, but what about A⊧B vs A⊢B? (sorry for abusing of your time but may i add the difference between the previous and A⊩B to this question?)

How is constituting somsthing not a cause for it? Im confused by this. Doesnt the brain confirgutation cause the mind to be a certain way?

I watched until 1:31 and get annoyed with the lack of answer. Hahahaha.

How would things be if Wittgenstein had access to category theory?

What is language? Language is under the highest genus of quality. It is sensible quality. It is sensible quality that is auditory in character. It is sensible quality that is auditory in character and significant of something. It is significant sensible quality thay is auditory in character, significant of something and whose to power to signify comes convention.

love your work

This is brilliant and trippy