Just watched the entire playlist on Modal Logic in one go. I can't thank you enough for making these excellent videos! Perfectly organized and perfectly presented, helped me so much! Subscribed, and will definitely come back and watch some of your other videos at another time.
As a math student, I have research this coming semester on Modal logic in relation to topological spaces. I had never heard of modal logic and this playlist was very very helpful to help me learn and understand modal logic. Thank you so much!!!
Regarding the deontic example, it seems to me that the paradox is only solved by giving the obligation operator narrow scope if I by itself does not entail A, because if I by itself entails A and is obligatory, then the paradox remains. But it seems intuitive to me that I by itself does entail A. Is there something I've missed? Or do we just have to say that I alone doesn't entail A?
17:45 Just for the sake of completeness, the conclusion of the last argument, after the correction read: ◻Kxp→Cxp; Which is equivalent to ◻~Mxp → Cxp So the argument begs the question.
Kane! I am really enjoying your videos. I am from the UK too, originally Pakistan. What I don’t understand is that you say that P’s truth is not necessarily given, it is contingent. But P’s truth is given in P1 (6:13) where we say if P is true. I am misunderstandiing the meaning of if implications (if statement)?
Ok, i dont´understand your first example: (P1) All that glitters is not gold. (P2) This rock glitters. (P3) This rock isn´t gold. According to Kane B (in his video on the Modal Scope Fallacy), there are two interpretations to P1: 1 - All that glitters is non-gold 2 - Not all that glitters is gold Now, obviously ignoring the nomological truth of the issue, that is, we know that there are rocks that glitter and are gold (or maybe that every gold rock glitters), we know that that P1 clearly says that All that glitters isn´t gold.
I think it has to do with the way the word "all" encompasses the whole phrase into it's scope. Without the word "all" you'd get: "What glitters is not gold." In that case, saying "1 - All that glitters is non-gold" would apply, but is false in the real world. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure you can flip the wording. If F=/=G, then G=/=F (where "=/=" is the words "is not"). So, if you take "All that glitters is not gold" and flip it, you should get another phrase with the same meaning in this case: "Gold is not all that glitters." And if F=G and G=H, then F=H. Since saying "Gold is not all that glitters" means "2 - Not all that glitters is gold" then "All that glitters is not gold" also means "2 - Not all that glitters is gold." This also applies to the phrase from which I took out the word "all." Flipping "What glitters is not gold" gives you "Gold is not what glitters" which we know not to be true. So, the word "all" and it's scope are very important here.
Just watched the entire playlist on Modal Logic in one go. I can't thank you enough for making these excellent videos! Perfectly organized and perfectly presented, helped me so much! Subscribed, and will definitely come back and watch some of your other videos at another time.
Great video
As a math student, I have research this coming semester on Modal logic in relation to topological spaces. I had never heard of modal logic and this playlist was very very helpful to help me learn and understand modal logic. Thank you so much!!!
Thank you for this excellent video series! Wonderfully clear introduction to the topic
Would love to see a video on future contingents
Regarding the deontic example, it seems to me that the paradox is only solved by giving the obligation operator narrow scope if I by itself does not entail A, because if I by itself entails A and is obligatory, then the paradox remains. But it seems intuitive to me that I by itself does entail A. Is there something I've missed? Or do we just have to say that I alone doesn't entail A?
17:45 Just for the sake of completeness, the conclusion of the last argument, after the correction read:
◻Kxp→Cxp; Which is equivalent to ◻~Mxp → Cxp
So the argument begs the question.
Kane! I am really enjoying your videos. I am from the UK too, originally Pakistan. What I don’t understand is that you say that P’s truth is not necessarily given, it is contingent. But P’s truth is given in P1 (6:13) where we say if P is true. I am misunderstandiing the meaning of if implications (if statement)?
FAntastico!
Ok, i dont´understand your first example:
(P1) All that glitters is not gold.
(P2) This rock glitters.
(P3) This rock isn´t gold.
According to Kane B (in his video on the Modal Scope Fallacy), there are two interpretations to P1:
1 - All that glitters is non-gold
2 - Not all that glitters is gold
Now, obviously ignoring the nomological truth of the issue, that is, we know that there are rocks that glitter and are gold (or maybe that every gold rock glitters), we know that that P1 clearly says that All that glitters isn´t gold.
I think it has to do with the way the word "all" encompasses the whole phrase into it's scope.
Without the word "all" you'd get: "What glitters is not gold." In that case, saying "1 - All that glitters is non-gold" would apply, but is false in the real world.
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure you can flip the wording. If F=/=G, then G=/=F (where "=/=" is the words "is not").
So, if you take "All that glitters is not gold" and flip it, you should get another phrase with the same meaning in this case: "Gold is not all that glitters." And if F=G and G=H, then F=H. Since saying "Gold is not all that glitters" means "2 - Not all that glitters is gold" then "All that glitters is not gold" also means "2 - Not all that glitters is gold."
This also applies to the phrase from which I took out the word "all." Flipping "What glitters is not gold" gives you "Gold is not what glitters" which we know not to be true. So, the word "all" and it's scope are very important here.
Is neccesitarianism similar to Richard Taylor's fatalism?