Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

## 3222Re: Fruitful non-excluded middle

Expand Messages
• May 2, 2011
Edward, Thank you for explaining! I've included your examples here:
http://www.selflearners.net/ways/#992
http://www.selflearners.net/ways/#993

And here is a link to the semiotic square:
http://www.selflearners.net/ways/#994

Now I'm working on writing up a brief "general method" for "figuring
things out". Then I'll show how I apply that to making a living.

Andrius Kulikauskas, ms@...

2011.04.25 20:30, Edward Cherlin rašė:
> 2011/4/25 Andrius Kulikauskas <ms@...>:
>> Edward, thank you for your letters! They are very helpful. I ask you
>> also to think of examples where methods, or a kind of thinking, proved
>> fruitful. You mention the excluded middle. For example, the Lithuanian
>> semiotician Algirdas Julius Greimas developed the semiotic square
>> (related to Aristotle's logical square), for example: White Black
>> Not-Black Not-White. Where Not-White might be "colorlessness" and
>> Not-Black might be "grey" if I remember correctly. But for my purposes,
>> I want to document examples where such thinking was actually fruitful.
>
> Yale Professor Fred B. Fitch's book, Symbolic Logic presents a system
> of logic that can be proven consistent. Dropping the law of Excluded
> Middle was essential to the construction. Gödel's theorem depends on
> Excluded Middle, so it doesn't apply to this proof of consistency.
>
> If R is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves (with
> further precision required that does not concern us here), then R is a
> member of R if and only if R is not a member of R. In the presence of
> Excluded Middle, this results in contradiction. In its absence, it is
> merely undecidable both in terms of provability and of truth.
>
> This idea can be followed into a realm of multiple-valued logics.
>
> Buddhist logic considers the possibilities
>
> Exists
> Does not exist
> Both exists and does not exist
> Neither exists nor does not exist
> None of the above
>
> as one of many ways of stating that meditation does not work the way you
think.
>
>> I don't want to confuse fruitful and nonfruitful approaches! And I also
>> want to relate each way of thinking with the kinds of results it yields.
>>
>> I'm always wondering how I could make a living from documenting and
>> sharing "ways of figuring things out". Perhaps I should do that for
>> business and economics.
>
> It's known as becoming a professor or a published writer.
>
> Separately, however, you would be welcome to contribute to our
> analysis of business and economics for schoolchildren in developing
> countries, where the dogmas of conventional economics are revealed to
> be the airiest fantasies.
>
>> Thank you for thinking along with me!
>>
>> Andrius
>>
>> Andrius Kulikauskas
>> http://www.selflearners.net
>> ms@...
>> (773) 306-3807
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Each letter sent to Learning From Each Other enters the PUBLIC DOMAIN
unless it explicitly states otherwise
http://www.ethicalpublicdomain.org Please be kind to our