/sci/ - Science & Math

New and better systems of formal logic

For example, the logic that you would use to run a quantum computer

>>10784376
All scientific fields, all ideologies, all religions... They're all just subsets of philosophy.

>>10784379
What's insufficient about current formal logic?

>>10784383
Depends on who you ask. Modal logic has applications that regular propositional and quantified logic may not, for example. Innovations are still being made in that field

>>10784380
There's a significant gap between a scientific field that's graduated from it's philosophical roots though. It's resting on philosophical suppositions that are treated as stable pillars. The field may be open to questioning those pillars and re-evaluating, but none the less they are treated as stable in a different manner than questions in a philosophical line.

Anyone got thoughts on the nature of the gap between a post-philosophical field and its philosophical root? May depend on the discipline, but there must be commonalities.

Bump

>>10784376
>ontology offer psychology/neuroscience?
I've done exactly this to a wide extent. Starts off here.
>>/sci/thread/S10719938#p10720783
It's a fair whack of a read.

This question is probably better posed to philosophers than scientists.

>>10784398
/his/'s philosophers arn't around and the rest of /his/ is discussing muh aryan master-race.

>>10784400
His philosophers are faggots that drank 360° of citation kool aid.

>>10784383
Its incomplete

>>10784405
How so?

>>10784405
Seconding >>10784407

AFAIK It's the art of square peg, round hole but inverse.

Hole being our verbal explanation. The peg being the object.
There's two ways to make it work. You formulate better sentences, and even words. Yes you're allowed to make words. Coined Tulpaphant the other day.
The better you do it, the closer the hole gets around the peg.

The other, /lesser/ way is to change the peg (object to define).
And that would be by making it more relative, but not changing the object main property's.
This isn't the wrong way. But it should be last case in lue of better ways.
It can be a preferred/first way if the subject calls for it.

>>10784422
Regarding the /lesser/ way -
So there's a certain amount of flexibility concerning the peg? Presumably the flexibility is dependent on the object in question.

>by making it more relative
Could you explain what you mean more specifically?

>>10784427
Yeah. Usually to apply to another concept.
>Could you explain
If you want to go over my archives(also includes 1 thread in /pol/).
I've been defining Holographic universe as I understand it.
You'll see me discuss and tweak my argument with every re-post.
The older ones, are still right. But not as correct to the /physical/ thing in question, as they have become to be.

Or this might help.

Spelling and grammer are modern day conventions designed to limit ones own understanding and comprehension.
By makeing these rules, and restricting to them hampens learning the ablity to decypher information.
Those that have succumbed to this subversive control measure against problem solveing targeted to impressionalbe minds, are often incapable to decern any meaning in a sentance that contains even one error. Despite the wealth of clues and the contextual information available to fill in this blank. Let alone if the error of text was a simple typo, or phonetic spelling.
It has aldo given arize to the phenomenon of 'Grammer Nazis'.
That will hunt down violaters, and claim that due to an 'error' in formating, renders all subsenquent information as incorrect.
An institution synonymous with discrediting people for the whole of their work sue to an unrelated error, or later disproven theroy in past.
It's an deliberate act to stifle the advancement of knowledge and learning. Not a testiment of it.

Now I'm sure you have a different idea to that concept. Be it the wording for effect, or the core idea behind it.
Copy it into a text field and play with it and repost. We'll see what changes.

>>10784427
Oh, and the core incorrectness was mentioning velocity.
It was still correct. But it was the non frame reference of that, which applied.
I was looking for vector achieved due to only one point of reference, Because acceleration doesn't need a frame of reference, Just to short list that for you.
It's hard to see in the posts. I'm a bit cryptic, sorry.

>>10784433
>>10784440

oof

>>10784379
LOL mathematicians and physicists are not philosophers.

>>10784376
bmp

Read Isabelle Stengers
>From Einstein’s quest for a unified field theory to Stephen Hawking’s belief that we “would know the mind of God” through such a theory, contemporary science—and physics in particular—has claimed that it alone possesses absolute knowledge of the universe. In a sweeping work of philosophical inquiry, originally published in French in seven volumes, Isabelle Stengers builds on her previous intellectual accomplishments to explore the role and authority of science in modern societies and to challenge its pretensions to objectivity, rationality, and truth.

>For Stengers, science is a constructive enterprise, a diverse, interdependent, and highly contingent system that does not simply discover preexisting truths but, through specific practices and processes, helps shape them. She addresses conceptual themes crucial for modern science, such as the formation of physical-mathematical intelligibility, from Galilean mechanics and the origin of dynamics to quantum theory, the question of biological reductionism, and the power relations at work in the social and behavioral sciences. Focusing on the polemical and creative aspects of such themes, she argues for an ecology of practices that takes into account how scientific knowledge evolves, the constraints and obligations such practices impose, and the impact they have on the sciences and beyond.

>This perspective, which demands that competing practices and interests be taken seriously rather than merely (and often condescendingly) tolerated, poses a profound political and ethical challenge. In place of both absolutism and tolerance, she proposes a cosmopolitics—modeled on the ideal scientific method that considers all assumptions and facts as being open to question—that reintegrates the natural and the social, the modern and the archaic, the scientific and the irrational.

>>10784755
>Arguing for an “ecology of practices” in the sciences, Isabelle Stengers explores the discordant landscape of knowledge derived from modern science, seeking intellectual consistency among contradictory, confrontational, and mutually exclusive philosophical ambitions and approaches. For Stengers, science is a constructive enterprise, a diverse, interdependent, and highly contingent system that does not simply discover preexisting truths but, through specific practices and processes, helps shape them.

>Stengers concludes this philosophical inquiry with a forceful critique of tolerance; it is a fundamentally condescending attitude, she contends, that prevents those worldviews that challenge dominant explanatory systems from being taken seriously. Instead of tolerance, she proposes a “cosmopolitics” that rejects politics as a universal category and allows modern scientific practices to peacefully coexist with other forms of knowledge.

>>10784376
There's no real difference between science and philosophy, they do more or less the same thing.

>>10784407
Because it's consistent
"Logic" isn't a thing like what most people think. Logic is a subcategory of mathematics (which is itself a subcategory of computer science/computation) and there exists an infinite set of formal logical systems.