ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ม.ค. 2013
- A brief, intuitive introduction to the basic concepts of modal logic. The box & diamond operators, necessity & possibility, possible worlds, etc. If you're already familiar with all this stuff, you can skip this video.
Part 2: • Modal logic 0.2 - basi...
Great video. 8 years later and it’s still helpful.
My final paper for my MA course work on Logic will commence today and this video has been helpful since I came across it. Thanks a lot sir.
same here buddy 😂
Intellectually satisfying due to the balance feeling.
I knew a little bit about modal logic but never had any formal lectures on it. Thanks.
These are very informative. Thanks.
The best bet would be to dive into the literature. Phil of logic is, like logic in general, a diverse field, so it's difficult to give recommendations. Three good places to start:
Quine - "Philosophy of Logic"
Haack - "Philosophy of Logics" & "Deviant Logic, Fuzzy Logic"
If you're dealing w/ phil of logic you'll want to brush up on phil of language and phil of mathematics too. I recommend:
Lycan - Philosophy of Language
Friend - Introducing Philosophy of Mathematics
(cont)
Excellent tutorial ! thanks
Kane B
Is there a way of founding probability theory on modal logic, and maybe some other things, in the same way as Godel was able to derive the axioms of arithmetic from set theory and regular logic?
It's also worth being aware of Quine's critique of modal logics. I have a video series on this (currently unfinished).
Beyond modal logics? As I said, phil of logic is a diverse field. It's difficult to suggest anything without knowing more about your interests. But whatever you do, you'll need a good understand of logic itself. I recommend:
Priest - Introduction to Non-Classical Logics
which provides good grounding in all sorts of logical systems.
Kane B Quine ruined everything. Lol j/p
Very clear explanation thanks
Or, slightly more technical: Brown - Philosophy of Mathematics
Where to go from here depends on your interests. The primary philosophical debates in modal logic have focused on interpretations of possible worlds. I recommend:
Girle - Possible Worlds
Divers - Possible Worlds
and, of course, the classic: Lewis - On the Plurality of Worlds (though this is a sustained defence of a controversial viewpoint, rather than an introductory survey).
(cont.)
Great Video!
Many thanks for the video
can you make about strict conditionals please.
nice video, boltzman brain!
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
Why do we have a concept for possibly P but not for possibly not P?
Very help
Nice
This may be too much of a request but I'll ask anyway. Would you be able to send me all the e. books relevant to my study on logic? I really need help! PLEAASEE AHAHAH!
7:26 to 7:40. Kripke would like a word with you.
Is there a reason why "unnecessity" isn't mentioned? i.e. ~□p or ◇~p
It wasn’t necessary to mention.
Almost forgot - another good intro to phil of logic:
Read - Thinking About Logic
Is there any others you would recommend?
hello there! I'm a philosophy major and i'm really interested in not only modal logic, but logic per se. I want to write my thesis on logic but I can't find a good topic.. Any suggestions?? Please! I really need help!
So how has that worked out, did you find a good topic? What are you doing now with your degree? Found a Job?
@@JSVR62BATXSH yeah probably in sales or something
2:34 start
Apart from my rantings on the metaethics course. I want you to know that i really appreciate what you have done on your channel.
Thank you for all of this.
So the box isn't the d'Alembertian operator? Jaja. Just kidding. Nice video.
3:15, 3:21, 3:30
Наличие множества логик - точная калька с притчи о слепых мудрецах (или об исследователях с завязанными глазами), ощупывающих слона. Один мудрец будет кричать о модальной логике, другой - о философской, третий - о трансцедентальной и т.д. - об иллокутивной, непрерывной, неформальной, содержательной и т.п. Однако, всё богатство их плюралистических мнений порождено архаичной, ошибочной аксиоматикой именно классической логики, 23 века назад принятой за неукоснительную научную истину. Просто современная наука ещё не осознала, что у логиков в работе уже новое, современное и правильное (признанное госэкспертами) описание силлогистики. См:
1) 07-04. ПЕРИОДИЧЕСКАЯ СИСТЕМА ЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ЭЛЕМЕНТОВ (ПСЛЭ): th-cam.com/video/S1YHvYEleto/w-d-xo.html
2) 07-05. ПОЛНАЯ СИСТЕМА СУЖДЕНИЙ СИЛЛОГИСТИКИ ПСЛО-2: th-cam.com/video/QOmjAtANOvQ/w-d-xo.html
3) 07-06. ПРАВИЛЬНЫЙ РАСЧЁТ СИЛЛОГИЗМОВ - Рекомендации преподавателям логики: th-cam.com/video/OCv6BTsnLO4/w-d-xo.html
Only one is the correct logic. This logic which 2500 years is mostly near the natural logic. This is Dialectical logic. Every other logic is an opinion as Socrates the philosopher said. The same answer gave and Aristotle to mathematician logic of Pythagoras school. The top math logic of our century was the Nash behavior equation but the Greek mathematician Daskalakis proof that this equation hadn't any decisions. Because our system is always on relativistic move and this make the result to be unpredictable, uncertain, because your mathematician logic is metaphysics a static picture of things and even before you had to finish your calculations the reality has been changed and your result is not any more relevant. The Universe is an open system as Alan Goth, Linde, and sir Penrose suggest and chaotic. Open chaotic system haven't any math decision. The most systematic job about this kind of math logic was done from a great philosopher Immanuel Kant but after him the great philosopher Hegel proof that there isn't any other logic except the Dialectical logic. So, my friend just move one don't try to return buck with old things. Discover the material motion and after that the only human logic that can understand it the Dialectic.
Gibberish.
@@DarrenMcStravick Yes, the dialectical logic isn't for everyone to understand, for most people are gibberish. How is possible for the deterministic Einstein to be correct at the same moment as the uncertainty of Bohr? But this is the reality, this is natural because everything is in motion. If you want to understand nature, you will have to learn dialectic thinking and if you want to learn dialectic thinking you have to read a lot of books.