5 ms·
Before you even get to self-reference there are the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_m
by leoc 10y ago
Before you even get to self-reference there are the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implicat... : ~(A & ~B) is a very poor approximation of 'if A then B' once you leave the world of statements about mathematics. Graham Priest's /Introduction to Non-Classical Logic/ http://www.cambridge.org/ie/academic/subjects/philosophy/philosophy-science/introduction-non-classical-logic-if-2nd-edition http://www.cambridge.org/ie/academic/subjects/philosophy/phi... is great (as is his lecturing on the subject: Priest really ought to do a MOOC...)
- leoc 10y agoHere's a "LOGIC: A SHORT INTRODUCTION" video series by Priest: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVJ2vTa3CVnS8VVn20qOwfUyOdkyhBN_k https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVJ2vTa3CVnS8VVn20qOw...
- skybrian 10y agoThese paradoxes seem to be tied to not distinguishing between correlation and causation? True statements are perfectly correlated with all other true statements, and material implication doesn't distinguish between them even if they have different causes. When reasoning informally we do try to distinguish between correlation and causation.