SUO: Re: Re: Logic & Programming Languages
From: "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@philebus.tamu.edu>
> Exactly right. And since identification is utterly irrelevant to logic,
> if Seth thinks otherwise he is clearly in need of some education. That
> might be blunt, perhaps, but it's the simple truth.
Well if you can show me how we can do logic without substitution of
identicals, then I will concede that identification is irrelevant to logic.
In a more serious vein, certainly the methods of logic have been isolated
from the content of its symbols: in a binary system p <=> ~~p regardless of
what p stands for. But I don't believe this isolation necessarily serves us
well, for when we apply the certain methods of logic, we must abandon our
methods of grounding our symbols, and when we are creating and grounding of
our symbols we have no certain methods of logic. Classical logicians pride
themselves on this separation; yet it is this very separation which makes
logic less useful to solve real world problems. Perhaps there is a way to
combine the proven methods of logic and the creation and grounding of our
symbols in the same system. Perhaps another species would not have made
this separation - perhaps another species has a better logic. Perhaps
another species would read (p <=> ~~p) and start laughing.
Some web pages come to mind:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/pnc-pem.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr1998/entries/identity-indiscernible/
> If I'm right, then Seth is wrong. I'm right. Therefore, Seth is wrong.
About what? The form of your logic is impeccable, yet it is irrelevant.
Seth Russell