|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 29, 2021 23:31:29 GMT
"If/then" observes if one phenomenon occurs then another follows. However it does not explain how the connection occurs but rather there is a connection. This connection as undefined necessitates that what follows "if" is as undefined as the connection which follows.
The connection is purely assumed and as assumed is relegated to a belief as to what ought happen. This "ought" is purely an assertion and as an assertion necessitates that multiple other "thens" may follow "if" with no one "then" being greater than another. The "if/then" dichotomy does not lend itself to a clear answer given multiple "thens" may be observed.
|
|
antor
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Likes: 51
Country: Sweden
Politics: Middle Left something
Religion: Apatheist
Age: 35
|
Post by antor on Jul 4, 2021 4:24:25 GMT
You're on some kind of track.
|
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Jul 4, 2021 15:34:20 GMT
You're on some kind of track. Let me inject a specific issue: "If there is a crime, then there must be a punishment". I have asserted a connection between crime and punishment, but I did not explain why there must (or there ought to) be a punishment. Can anybody explain?? |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 5, 2021 15:10:03 GMT
so, if...then is a problem because it does not answer everything instantly?
we use this in computer-programming all the time,
perhaps get stuck into some code, and you'll see
how multiple if...then conditionals can resolve
any problem in logic
the real problem is when people apply principles
of physics like this to psychology ... in fact
'there are no perfect laws in psychology'
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 5, 2021 17:30:54 GMT
I see a problem: From the viewpoint of Logic, 'If...., then....' has to be taken in this sense, "If..., then NECESSARILY....." but as 9x explicitly says, no explanation is given as to why this is so -- as to the connection between the antecedent part and the consequent part. To put it differently: while reasoning, a person may provide an explanation, but "beginners" are hereby advised not to rely on the formal hypothetical syllogisms [Modus Ponens & Modus Tollens] to draw conclusions about the real world. Furthermore, there can be a semantic problem while using ordinary language, since we are not strict about dfferentiating "If.... then...." and "If and only if.... then...." Most "fallacies" are true and logical. Writers tend to use confusing terms because they are sheltered and isolated from the public and don't care about communicating effectively. A "fallacy" merely means that some method of reaching a conclusion is not true in all cases. So what if it isn't? Perfectionism leads to paralysis. Unreasonable doubt, hesitation (Common Sense: "He who hesitates is lost"), and inaction is the goal that our academic clique sets for us. False, the fallacy fallacy necessitates an argument's truth value is not determined by whether or not a fallacy takes place within the argument. A fallacious argument may in fact be true. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 5, 2021 17:32:55 GMT
I see a problem: From the viewpoint of Logic, 'If...., then....' has to be taken in this sense, "If..., then NECESSARILY....." but as 9x explicitly says, no explanation is given as to why this is so -- as to the connection between the antecedent part and the consequent part. To put it differently: while reasoning, a person may provide an explanation, but "beginners" are hereby advised not to rely on the formal hypothetical syllogisms [Modus Ponens & Modus Tollens] to draw conclusions about the real world. Furthermore, there can be a semantic problem while using ordinary language, since we are not strict about dfferentiating "If.... then...." and "If and only if.... then...." If I stick my hand in the fire, it will necessarily burn. I need to give an explanation for this necessity? Why does that matter? The logic we use already has an explanation built into it. If we're talking in the context of fire and danger, then saying my hand will necessarily burn doesn't require an explanation. One option is that it may be burned, another option is that it is not burned. This may occur if the arm is pulled out quick enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 11, 2021 7:53:34 GMT
I guess there are plenty of questions to this can be. And surely we can asking about how precise our description od the material equivalence, but firstly:
1. Common conditionals
We can say or think about something with constructions as "if/then" e.g.: "Yesterday I saw heavy clouds in the sky, and now it's raining"
2. Material implication
We can formalize it into the implication using this standard semantic:
p|q|p→q
0|0|1
0|1|1
1|0|0
1|1|1
This time we can ask how closely our formalization to the real world is, and are there any cases which aren't covered by our implication?
3. Meaningful implication
This is to be known as the meaningful implication. It formulates by as formalization so briefly with common words:
"It's impossible for any antecedent be true, while a consequent be false"
That means that there is no semantics such as p=1, q=0, and the result p→q=1.
4. Fuzzy implication
This implication has the value variety. Instead of saying that p→q=1 or 0 we can say that p or q has value from 0.0 to 1.0.
And the result is being calculated according to the maximum with inverted p:
a) Min: p&q = p∩q
b) Max: pvq = p∪q
c) Inv: ~p = 1–p
d) Imp: p→q = ~pvq = (1–p)∪q
e) x&y = x*y
For example, let p=0.2, and q=0.3:
p→q = (1–0.2)∪0.3 = 0.7∪0.3
pvq = ~(~p&~q) = 1–((1–0.7)*(1–0.3)) = 0.79
5. Implicating sense
This theme is ultimately complex. For instance, about it wrote as J. S. Mill in his "The System of Logic", so G. Frege "Sinn Und Bedeutung".
The thing is to know:
a. How to consider sense of a sentence in logic?
b. How to imply sense?
A. Ginovaef's offer:
I. If there's no meaning, there's no sense
II. A meaning can be derived from the sense
III. A sense_1 can be derived from a sense_2 if and only if all the meanings can be derived from the sense_1.
|
|
