[Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?

[Kenneth Marcy]

On 3/1/2013 3:47 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> Well, I'm happy to do an independent study on alternative logics, if
> you'd like. They don't teach that stuff but they should.

At the moment I am fully and enjoyably occupied studying some early 
modern philosophers and philosophy of science, so alternative logics 
must be postponed, at least, for a while.

> Turns out
> that we use complex variables (imaginary numbers) to determine the
> orbits of objects in our solar system!

It may be that complex numbers are to real numbers as three-valued logic 
is to two-valued logic, but, scary as it may seem to read, complex 
numbers are actually more prevalent and used in practical situations 
than three-valued logic is in everyday life. Complex numbers are used in 
matters as mundane as electricity calculations and electric motor 
design, and more advanced quantum physics subjects that give us optical 
drives and grocery store scanners.  On the other hand, as you suggest, 
three-valued logic is a rather more specialized topic of mostly academic 
interest.

As for orbits, since our satellite velocities are so much lower than the 
speed of light, we are able to rely on Newtonian physics using a 
classical geometry rather than Einsteinian physics and a space-time 
geometry.  Diligence with differential equations must be matched with 
care for constants converting back and forth between English and metric 
system calculations lest we lose a(nother) satellite from an orbital 
capture into the vast volume of the void.

> Personally, I strive to present my arguments in the language of
> classical, first-order logic!

Persistent effort to master basic two-valued logic at least to a level 
of consistent statement presentation and argument is doubtless valuable 
advice regarding exposition for either enlightenment or entertainment.  
I have yet to build a reading list for the area after symbolic logic and 
before the detailed depths of Russell and Whitehead's Principia 
Mathematica (even just the short version to section 56), so perhaps 
ternary titles are premature.

(Not to mention that some attention to finite math (i.e., learning to 
count) in the area of combinatorics might help to build some temerity 
about increasing the number of possible truth values in a system of logic.)


Ken

>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at frontier.com> wrote:
>> On 3/1/2013 2:34 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>> Wilson's argument -- the argument you defend -- is a fallacy. It even has
>>> a name: The slippery-slope fallacy. (Though there are conceptual
>>> slippery-slope arguments too that are very different.)
>>>
>>> Even if you put the argument in the form of a conditional -- If it's OK
>>> for any two consenting adults of either gender to marry, then it is OK for
>>> any three or more consenting adults of any gender to marry -- you still need
>>> an argument for the conditional. On the face of it, it seems pretty easy to
>>> distinguish the cases: Does he have one wife, or more than one? You say you
>>> see "the point" but I don't see the point, or the connection between a gay
>>> marriage between two consenting adults and a polygamous relationship.
>>>
>>> Unless the connection is that the government should stay out of the
>>> marriage business, which would be fine, and polygamy would be fine, too, if
>>> it weren't for fact that some adults will exploit the circumstances and
>>> marry tweens. Fact. That is why government is in the marriage business. We
>>> need to protect the young and vulnerable, and thus we need laws against
>>> certain types of unions.
>>>
>>> Here the defense is an appeal to the harm principle: One can make a law to
>>> protect citizens from harm (including harms to their interests). If there is
>>> no good reason to think that something will lead to a harm, the law should
>>> stay out of it. That protects us against pedophiles but allows for gay
>>> marriage.
>>
>> Interesting.  Does this conversation presage the availability of courses in
>> three-value, trinary, or ternary logic?
>>
>> I note that the Russians built a ternary electronic computer in 1958, and
>> improved it in 1970.
>>
>>
>> Ken