| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
14 Jun 2005 08:26:49 PM |
| Object: |
Tertium Non Datur and Quantum |
From Osher Doctorow
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Tertium Non Datur and Quantum
Copyright By Owner Osher Doctorow Ph.D.
First Published 2005
I want to thank Bob Kolker in my previous thread for indirectly
inspiring my looking further into Tertium Non Datur by his (in my
opinion) negative criticism of my theory. Kolker has quite a few
interesting posts in various threads, not all of them wrong :>)
Tertium Non Datur is Latin for roughly speaking "To be or not to be,"
(Shakespeare) or symbolically "a or not a" or "a V ~a" for a
proposition "a". If you don't know what a proposition is, it's roughly
something like "Marry me," with a subject, object, etc., so it would
translate like: "Marrying me will result in great things for you."
After the 1950s, especially among young people, this has tended to
change to: "Going out with me will be really cool if we're careful."
However, presumably there is a slight bit of the original sentiment if
not idea retained.
I recommend Max Jammer's (CUNY, Bar-Ilan University) The Philosophy of
Quantum Mechanics, Wiley: N.Y. 1974 for beginning one's understanding
of how Tertium Non Datur (TND for short herewith) relates to quantum
mechanics. Since his book has 536 pages, each with considerable
non-trivial ideas, make sure to read Chapter 8, Quantum Logic, pages
341-416. Meet me back here in 10 years (I jest) :>) Actually, you
can read it simultaneously with this thread (if not, try hypnosis -
another thing which Hungary exports besides Soros :>)
For those on the Fast Track (show of 99% raised hands), try
Intuitionistic Logic as keywords on the internet, which will probably
land you rapidly at brief papers whose URL begin with
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com (I don't know what this has to do
with Labor Law unless lawyers are trying to get back at Shakespeare).
For those more open-minded about some aspects of philosophy (well,
maybe one aspect :>) like Bob Kolker, try the Stanford Encyclopeda of
Philosophy online under those keywords (not the word "online," you
fool! :>), under Intuitionistic Logic (5 pages by the tight-lipped Joan
R. Moschovakis of UCLA), and then try the following papers under the
Stanford Encyclopedia:
A. Donald Davidson (15 pages)
B. Kurt Godel
C. Alfred Tarski
The last two are by memory, so you may have to look more carefully for
their exact titles (assuming they're there :>) Anyway, the paper on
Davidson and the one by Moschovakis should keep you busy until I return
if ever :>)
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Tertium Non Datur and Quantum |
14 Jun 2005 08:50:23 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Godel's out of print in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but
you can find Alfred Tarski under their paper "Truth definitions," by
Wilfrid Hodges (2001). Their more detailed paper on Taski is out of
print.
Davidson and Tarski are arguably the best of the three philosophically,
but Godel in my opinion can be completely salvaged by simply ignoring
his overriding Plurality-Obsession, which may be just roughly the other
side of the coin from Prugovecki's "Number One/Me" Obsession although
the Individual is really not just "me" but any Individual in any
context (hard to visualize? Try a little. Start with a few
examples.).
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Tertium Non Datur and Quantum |
14 Jun 2005 09:23:00 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
I should perhaps give readers a preview of coming attractions in this
thread.
Actually, look up "Mathematical philosophy for formal analysis," under
those keywords or at www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/maths/faq015.htm,
which paper is also under keywords Tertium Non Datur and Intuitionism
and Formalism as I recall. There you'll find very short outlines of
logicism, formalism, constructivism, Lakatos and social constructivism
(which are appropriately panned in my opinion).
Next look at Wikipedia's "Logic," under that keyword or more rapidly
under keywords "Logic Wikipedia", or under
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic, which is 8 pages long (the previous
paper is only 3 pages).
Roughly speaking, nobody knows much about "to be or not to be",
although BS experts love to claim that they do. Shakespeare arguably
knew as much as anybody if not everybody. There are all kinds of tugs
of war going on between anti-"to be or not to be" people who are mostly
called Intuitionists and pro- "to be or not to be" people who are
represented by Donald Davidson, former Professor Emeritus Professor of
Philosophy at U.C. Berkeley (with whom I happen to agree mostly).
Tarski does for semantics what Donaldson does in his field. The
Godel-Gentzen negative translation so-called interprets classical
predicate logic in the intuitionistic subsystem, but Godel wandered in
and out of many views with an overall Plurality-orientation.
Gerhard Gentzen was a really strange character who died in a Prague
prisoner of war camp after being arrested by the Russians for Nazi
loyalties. You can find a one pager on him in Wikipedia. I've said it
before, and I'll say it again: Plurality-Orientation makes friends
between communists and Fascists/Nazis. They only differ as to which
Plurality they prefer, and Number One ("Me") is usually highest on
their list. Humanity or the Ethnic Group is usually an idealized
abstraction in their minds that they seldom seem to actually see much
less interact with.
Ingenious Imitators in computer science and computer engineering and
some of their mathematician imitators tend to love Intuitionism if they
get that far in philosophy for reasons that I'll hopefully go into
later. Like Sir Roger Penrose, I should just remind potential
computer converts that a computer is basically a stupid machine (the
only mechanism with some similarities to people which actually deserves
to be called "stupid" or "ignorant" ) since to all intents and purposes
it can only reply "yes" or "no" which we wire into it.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Tertium Non Datur and Quantum |
14 Jun 2005 09:52:14 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
One of the most interesting thing about Davidson is that he resisted
the temptation to put the Individual higher than the Plurality or vice
versa or either of them higher than Knowledge (or the "World") which
had been the obsession of Descartes, Hume, Wittgenstein, Wilfrid
Sellars. Davidson argued that all of these beliefs come into existence
jointly and you can't have one without the other.
Perceptive readers may notice that Individual versus Plurality
(technically one-or-more but it can also mean two-or-more) is a matter
of psychological discrimination or ability to tell the difference
between two or more stimuli, which is certainly related to Knowledge at
the higher end, and it is no coincidence arguably that Materialism
typically occurs when they're an imbalance toward either extreme "Me
First" views or extreme "Them First" views (the latter involving a
typical split between public and private lives that is perhaps one of
the most amusing things that I have ever encountered in my 66 years of
life, though it does alternate with tragedy too). Of course, "Me
First" isn't any better, and they're both like wearing
blinkers/blinders.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy indicates that Davidson was one
of the most important and influential philosophers of the latter half
of the 20th Century, and that only Quine of a similar period of time
had a similar influence.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Tertium Non Datur and Quantum |
14 Jun 2005 10:11:11 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Davidson's early work was largely in decision theory, and Section 2 of
the Stanford Encyclopedia, namely Action and Mind, is divided into:
A. Reasons as Causes
B. The Anomalism of the Mental
C. Problems of Irrationality
D. Ontology and Logical Form
Under A, his first major philosophical publication, "Actions, reasons,
and causes," (1963) has a similar name to Marleen and my "On the nature
of causation (1983)." He argued that causal explanation includes
reference to reasons that people have for doing things (for example,
intentions, motives in acting), which was opposed to the
Wittgensteinian orthodoxy of the time which distinguished between
causal explanation as referring to explanation as instances of laws (of
nature) and "non-causal" explanation which includes reasons for acting
or deciding etc.
I'll let readers absorb this before proceeding.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
