My observations:
.1
There is no ordinary language; there are people who do not know the language,
so make it an intuitive functional ordinary use for the purposes of basic
social interactions.
.2
The concept, truth function, psychologically / axiomatically arises from
observation and description in a sentence of a natural language or formal
system of phenomena, events that the human brain identifies of the same nature
and characteristics always the same except for his present, his senses, not
constantly, then evaluated, or better, in this sense can be
defined as "true" when it presents itself, "false" when it
does not occur. Therefore say event or, truth function, it says the same thing.
.3
Regardless of your observation "since
your Ps and Qs are now standing for descriptions of Particular instances of
types of occurrences" what you are experiencing is the same phenomenon on
different objects, in the case of matches and rags, the phenomenon is the
burning, if of the pebble their
observability in two-second distance, the two phenomena considered to equal
initial conditions.
.4
"Assuming
that none of the pebbles That I see disappear from sight before 2 seconds are
up, 1000 These conditionals, with true antecedents and consequents true, are
true. This
accords with the first line of the truthtable. "
This
is not correct, we have the same conditional related to observability
phenomenon after 2 seconds applied to 1000 different stones, if you write:
A:
If I see pebble # 1 then it is still observable 2 seconds later.
B:
If I see pebble # 2 then it is still observable 2 seconds later.
You
are describing the observable phenomenon preached by the two propositions A and
B on two different objects (pebble # 1, # 2 pebble) but of the same nature and
subject to the same laws implied in the assumptions. In
my formulation with matches or bachelors, you proposed, I have called for
clearer shape, the conditions (assumptions) start and I formulated all through
an algorithm with clear instructions and clearly defined in order not to run
into interpretations, and your in If the pebble, is quite naive.
.5
"If
I see pebble # 47 then it is still observable 2 seconds later.
is false
and its antecedent is true and its consequent false. This accords with the
second line of the truthtable. (Note
That the truth of the other 999 propositions is not affected.) "
Are you sure of
this that affirms?
Think
about the situation of matches or the bachelor of which I report the
descriptive passages:
".if
The match is it is not switched off in the fall, observe what is happening
and
make notes on the notebook the statement S result (true or false) "
"That
.verify in the identity document is indicato civil status bachelor
.if
bachelor is bachelor, observe the sex indicato in the document
and
make notes on the notebook the statement S1 result (true or false) "
Now:
"I
am at the pebble number 47 of your example, I see, I wait two seconds, and I
check if I can still see it .... Now
observe what is happening and make notes
on the notebook the result (true or false) "
I
say that I could write in the notebook false in this case and that the rest of
the 999 propositions is unaffected by this.
.6
“ What about all the
pebbles I could have seen at a particular time but failed to see? Well, some of
them may have been observable 2 seconds after my failure but since I didn’t see
them I cannot verify or falsify whether they were still observable 2 seconds
later. So for those pebbles we would have conditionals with
false antecedents and true or false consequents. Are
those conditionals true or false? Their truth would be in accord with lines 3
and 4 of the truthtable. ”
Here there is another very naive
observation, third and fourth lines of the logical form of involvement where
the antecedent is false and the consequent is true, based on what you assess true?
In algorithmic model that I have proposed, I reject cases:
.if the match will go off, discard this
sequence and start again
.if not in possession of identity document,
discard this sequence and start again
And I would go even to discard:
“If I not see
pebble #N discard this sequence and start again”
That is the case where the antecedent of
the implication is false, and I do not by mistake or naivete.
My purpose is:
I ask you a justification of the results of the
third column that comes from a real experience and reproducible that helps a
person to understand clearly and to fix in the mind the concepts it represents.
P | Q | if P then Q
------------------------
V | V | V
V | F | F
F | V | V
F | F | V
Or how you justified, psychologically and
axiomatically, someone the logical form of the implication.
It 'quite evident
that my thesis on the theoretical gaps and the deep
understanding of the concept of implication is true.
Even professionals of your caliber manifest
cognitive presence of these gaps, and with this I do not intend neither to
offend nor to judge anyone, because I am here to learn and to propose to your
criticism the results of my own studies for all of us always have new
opportunities to grow, as I think all of you as the philosophers, professors, great
professionals, certainly share with me, that in my small way I am also a
professional.
To justify psychologically and
axiomatically the implication the algorithm I proposed is sufficient and solves
all the cases of the four rows of the truth table, although apparently it seems
like you've highlighted karl does not treat lines 3 and 4.
But
still no one answered me:
You think I could put myself with a notebook and a pencil in front of a
sequence of events (truthfunction, proposition) P and do the algorithmic test I
proposed?
The nature of the concept of implication and those of sufficient condition and
necessary condition still today hide aspects which maybe for the longest time I
have devoted to studying and above experiment and justify them I was able to
throw a faint light.
Maybe
even my studies in psychology and neuroscience have contributed a lot to this to
arrive at a deeper understanding of these concepts.
In
the algorithm and in the proposed questions you can find important tips, the
same that led me a step forward in understanding.
There
is still much to discover and discuss, we are only at the tip of the iceberg
and not imagine how much I would like to personally meet you, discuss with you
around a table and looking into his eyes.
If
only I had more resources I would invite you to reunite and discuss and produce an article
perhaps, epochal.
Please,
correct me if I made erros, ask me any further questions
other clarifications and
forgive any provocation and misunderstanding.
Thank you all for
your attention and participation
Fabrizio