Science, Logic, and Mathematics


Search forums
Subscribe to this forum      feed for this page

 1 - 20 / 124 
Could anyone explain the difference between being part and being member (if any)? References to existing literature are welcome. 
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Quantum Computing: Myth or Reality?

"What I like most in science is science-fiction"
Unknown from the web.

Schrödinger's cat is probably one of the most famous pets in history, right beside Cerberus and Pegasus. I must confess that quantum computing remains largely a mystery, and while researching the subject I could not but notice the lack of any concrete information about what it really entails.
Take the concept of qubit. It has mathematically been defined, and, as far as I can see, mathematicians agree on the definition. Which is certainly good enough for me. But then I wonder, how would a quantum gate or circuit look like?
Well, if you ask this question on the Internet, you get treated to more mathematical formulas.
A very intriguing concept is that of superposition. I have great difficulty in grasping the reality behind it. Let us assume that a bit can be both 1 and 0 at the same time. What good will it do to us if we are not able to get a clear answer after reading it? In other words ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!

If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

The challenge is very simple: Give a full and explicit proof of the existence of Infinity.There is only one restriction: it is not allowed to refer to "proofs" already known. If you believe Cantor has proved Infinity, you cannot just refer to his work, but have to state explicitly what and how you think he has proved it.
I wish you luck.
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply


Studies aimed at understanding the construction and probable location of the consciousness (or self) from the biofield emissions at a dying condition?

Are there any recent investigations carried out in connection with biophoton emissions from a dying person? or, at least, do we have investigations on various bio-emissions (which includes EM spectral emissions over various bandwidths) associated with a dying condition? Also, any recent Gas Discharge Visualization (GDV) studies on a dying person?

Suppose, if we are able to detect certain bio-emissions (having the specific bandwidth) other than in the Infra-red (IR) region (which is usually connected to the metabolic activity), then we can associate these emission frequencies to the fundamental oscillations or modes at which communication (both inter- and intra-) happens. These modes can then act as the interface between mind (non-material aspect), body (material aspect) and the environment.

If we want to understand how a material brain coul ... (read more)

[The idea is to start with a concrete situation, like a mother preparing a meal for an extended family, and discovering numbers in their different form: natural, whole, negative, rational (including radicals), real, imaginary, complex, etc...

Mother is of course an archetype and can include many generations of mothers. There are 12 family members and, to make things simpler, they all eat the same amount of food.  Some kind of grain.]

1) Mother knows how much grain she needs to cook for all of them. She just keeps taking handfuls of grain and putting them in the cooking pan until she is satisfied that it will be enough. She has no way of knowing or naming exact quantities. Her experience as a cook is sufficient for the task. She can also enumerate each family member by name, including herself, while grabbing grain, since she also knows how much each member approximately eats. To be sure she does not forget anyone, or count somebody twice, she starts with Father, then herself, and then with ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

My reasons:
1. Accoding to relative information formula I=log[P(ei|hj)/P(ei)] in classical information theory, if P(ei|hj)2. A lie or wrong prediction is worse than a tautology or contradiction. For example, after master tells kitchener  "Three guests will come to have dinner", actually no guest comes. The master's saying is worse than a tautology or contradiction, because it will bring loss. Yet, according a tautology or contradiction, the kitchener either does nothing or asks for better prediction. 
3. If we code P(E|hj) according to a wrong prabability prediction or likelihood, such as P(E| hk is true) (actually hypothesis hk is wrong), the average codeword length will be H(E|hk)=- sum i P(ei|hj)logP(ei | hk is true)>H(E|hj)- sum i P(ei|hj)logP(ei|hj), which means that the saved average codeword length is negative.

I modify the formula  I=log[P(ei|hj)/P(ei)] into I(ei;hj)=log[P(ei|hj is true)/P(ei)]=log[T(hj|ei)/T(hj) 
where  P is statistical probability, and T(hj|ei) is the true value of p ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Would like some responses on these thoughts:

Space is the negation of substance, of reality, of being; thus, space is nothing, unreality, non-being.

Can anyone see nothing or imagine nothing? Yes, for space is nothing. To see nothing means to see no thing.

Consequently, we do not see things in space; we see things alone and their negation, viz.,space.

Things do not occupy space. For then, what does space occupy?

Things negate space, i.e. nothing.

Take a plastic bottle of 1 ltr. How much water can it contain? 1 ltr. Squeeze it, can it contain 1 ltr of water? No, why? Because the bottle being squeezed increasingly negates space allowing less negatability for another (meaning that negatibility for it increases at the same time). For perfect density = perfect negation of space; less density = less negation of space. That which is negated cannot be again negated without the destruction of that which negates it.

Zero = infinite; therefore, space = infinite; it can be infinitely negated by things wi ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Preliminary Observation
Set Theory is believed to be the foundation of Mathematics, the theory from which everything mathematical would be deduced. It sounds like a metaphysical prejudice to my ears: how could a mathematical theory ever found mathematics? What would then found Set Theory itself? Its axioms? They are all of a mathematical nature, so that would not work. We would need non-mathematical axioms to found Set Theory, before it ever could found Mathematics. Is that even possible? This is what I intend to research in this thread. But please, bear with me, there is no royal road to the foundation of the foundation of Mathematics. If there even exists such a thing.

Axiom of Choice and Well-Ordering Principle
The universal consensus is that WOP relies on AC. I have the strong impression that it is in fact the other way around.
When I look at the incredibly complicated "proof that every set can be well-ordered" by Zermelo (1904), I cannot escape the feeling that he would not be ab ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Reference and Self-Reference
The philosophical theme of reference is no doubt a wide and deep ocean. My attempts at presenting a new perspective on the subject can certainly not be considered as the final word on the subject. [see my thread Truth and Necessity]. Reading Quine "The Ways of Paradox" (1966), I realized that my (Strawsonian) conception that language does not refer poses special problems when the objects of reference are themselves linguistic elements. As Juergen Habermas would say, (natural) language is its own metalanguage, and just like our mind, seems to be able to look upon itself.
Self-reference is not only the source of many antinomies, it could mean the negation of my analysis as a whole: if language does not refer, how could it ever self-refer? My aim is quite simple. I will try to show that self-reference is not possible. The line of argumentation is easy to follow: no self-reference without reference. And since reference is not a linguistic property but an action un ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

What is your opinion about the IF-logic? Jaakko Hintikka has claimed, that it should replace FOL, and I can see reasons for that. The main reason for that is, in my opinion, that IFL allows us to use such combinations of quantifiers, that FOL doesn't allow. The greater expressive power of IFL is brought by the use of signaling prefixes and Henkin's prefixes. The main idea is, that IFL allows independence of quantifiers, which is completly natural idea. Actually it seems to be less natural to not allow different sorts of combinations of dependences between quantifiers. 
What is your opinion about this?
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

Logic covers vast areas of philosophy. It would be unfair to say mind is only a fraction of logic, empirically, the mind is causal. Immanuel Kant says in his 'Critique of Practical Reason' it is a priori and causal. Unfortunately he could not back this argument. Dummet's equation can be cracked by logic, if it is given, in rational terms. Logic given a priori, in empirical application is therefore causal.


To those interested in the philosophy of logic:


If everything goes right 2017 should see the release of a first of its kind book, Philosophical Perceptions on Logic and Order by IGI Global publishers (, a set of readings to accompany material presented in mainly introduction to logic courses, but also to those interested in the subject generally.


This work is being prepared based on my observation that students in logic courses, as well as many instructors teaching them, are clueless about the central philosophies driving the discipline. The generally prevailing view is “this is the way it is”, referring to the systems and methods of thinking in the course. These are mechanistically presented as the way of describing the world. After being told about what logically supposedly is, they are told that observations about their environment are put into relationships called “arguments”, where an emerging statement can be evaluated as to it having a ... (read more)

A proposition is said to be necessarily true if it is true in all possible worlds.
I would not know how to refute such an affirmation but I do wonder whether that proves the existence of any necessarily true proposition. After all, is it not possible that there are no such propositions for the simple reason that we could always imagine a world where a proposition, true in all others, would then be false?
Let us take a very likely candidate to modal necessity, the proposition "a=a". Can we imagine a world where that would not be true?
Even Alice's world, with all its indifference to logic rules would seem to sustain this inexorable truth: a thing is equal to itself, for however long it exists in one and the same state. Changing the subject from 'thing' to 'state' does not alter this necessity.

Still, imagine a world where, just like within the core of a living star, or even better, the condensed matter right before the Big Bang, or in a Black Hole, all things are in perpetual change from on ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

I'm a student learning about both Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence. A lot of theories about the cognitive processing of the mind are used as inspiration for models in AI. This got me thinking: is the scenario of AI taking over the world possible? Our intelligence is very complex, and I believe it has co-evolved with ethics and self-consciousness, leading me to believe these too would be characteristics if AI were ever created. This is a rudimentary blog I've written, but I'd definitely like feedback on what you guys think. This will help me evolve my argument and learn as well!
Link to blog:
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

I have written a short paper on an issue that I have not come across before. In it I attempt to argue that light waves are an opaque barrier between the eye of the observer and the objective world. And, that light waves prevent direct knowledge of objects in the world. I would be grateful for criticism and responses. Bert

Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

What kind of academic inquiry can best help humanity make progress towards as good a world as possible?  Why are philosophers apparently so uninterested in this question?  Is it because most believe the kind of academic inquiry we have today, devoted primarily to the pursuit of knoweldge and technological know-how, is the best that we can have, judged from the perspective of helping humanity make progress towards a better world?  Why are philosophers apparently so uninterested in arguments which seem to show decisively that inquiry restricted to the pursuit of knowledge is both profoundly irrational, and a menace?  The successful pursuit of knowledge and technological know-how, dissociated from a more fundamental concern to help humanity resolve conflicts and problems of living in increasingly cooperatively rational ways, is almost bound to lead to trouble.  Scientific knowledge and technological know-how enormously increase our power to act - for some of us at ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: Reply

 1 - 20 / 124