My logic reading is not going well – cannot find enough time.
Lay in bed listening to Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart
I thought I was rested – but I kept falling in and out of consciousness.
But unlike last time I ended up feeling OK.
Anyway I only remembered parts so I re-read most of it after I got up.
I have doubts about my logic reading plans.
I think the 1st part I still want to attempt – but it will be slower going.
I need time for reading groups I am in.
I also want to do some programming – e.g. conversion of “Russell” language.
Also I want to be able to watch fiction TV shows.
I should read some fiction – but doubt I can find the energy.
I am not as interested in the proofs of negative results of logic as what positive results there are.
Reading plan in order to read:
I hope to get through 10 pages/day average.
The 1st seven books are 1849 pages. They may take 185 days, or about 6 months and 5 days.
Of course, some pages will be blank, etc. But I think 10 pages/day is still a good goal, considering I also have other reading to do.
(3/13/2016 – revised order)
- The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, edited by Lou Goble — Chapters 1-6 (135 pages) – this is a re-read – I’ve read the complete book before.
- Methods of Logic: Fourth Edition, by W. V. Quine (303 pages) I saw him speak at the University of Iowa (probably 1975-1976) and also in Toronto in 1984. I nominated him for Honorary Membership in the BRS which was approved. I have studied several of his other books.
- Set Theory and its Logic by W. V Quine (329 pages)
- Computability and Logic: Third Edition by George S. Boolos and Richard C. Jeffrey. (300 pages) I’ve studied this book before, however my understanding diminished as I got further into it. However I think it a good choice, because it relates to Computer Science, and thus I have a background, and also because I have studied it before.
- The Philosophy of Set Theory: An Historical Introduction to Cantor’s Paradise by Mary Tiles. (223 pages) I’ve read this before & found it not difficult, but it would be good to review it.
- The Infinite by A. W. Moore. (233 pages) I’ve also read this before, but could profit by reviewing it.
- Mathematical Logic by Joseph R. Shoenfield (336 pages) I’ve started this book before, but had difficulty.
Other books to possibly study – Alphabetic Order by Author – Will plan reading order later. I do not see how I can get through it all, but this inventory will help selecting. Also I may choose to read only some articles in books that are collections. Most of these books I have only acquired recently. I also have all the volumes of the collected papers of Bertrand Russell published so far. Also a Paperback reprint of all the volumes of the 1st edition of Principia Mathamatica and hardback copies of all the volumes of the 2nd edition and the abridged to *56 edition.
The items below comprise 12991 pages excluding PM. About 1299 days or 3 years, 7 months and 9 days. (At 10 pages/day)
- Modal Logic by Patrick Blackburn, Maarten de Rijke and Yde Venema (523 pages)
- Model Theory by C. C. Chang and H. Jerome Keisler (622 pages)
- Introduction to Algorithms by Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson and Ronald L. Rivest (985 pages) I had this book in a class in graduate school.
- Introduction to Mathematical Logic by Alonzo Church. (356 pages)
- Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis by Paul J. Cohen (151 pages)
- The Search for Mathematical Roots 1870-1940: Logics, Set Theories and the Foundations of Mathematics from Cantor through Russell to Goedel by I. Grattan Guinnessn (593 pages)
- The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, edited by Lou Goble — Chapters 7-20 (348 pages) – this is a re-read – I’ve read the complete book before.
- Russell vs. Meinong: The Legacy of “On Denoting” edited by Nicholas Griffin and Dale Jacquette (363 pages)
- After “On Denoting”: Themes from Russell and Meinong (Russell: the Journal of the Bertrand Russell Archives Vol 27 no. 1) edited by Nicholas Griffin, Dale Jacquette and Kenneth Blackwell (183 pages)
- Principia Mathematica at 100 (Russell: the Journal of the Bertrand Russell Archives Vol 31 no. 1) edited by Nicholas Griffin, Bernard Linsky and Kenneth Blackwell (160 pages)
- The Palgrave Centenary Companion to Principia Mathematica edited by Nicholas Griffin and Bernard Linsky (434 pages)
- The Cambridge Companion to Bertrand Russell edited by Nicholas Griffin (506 pages)
- Introduction to Automa Theory, Languages and Computation (395 pages) by John E. Hopcroft and Jeffrey D. Ullman. (395 pages) I had this book in a class in graduate school.
- Propositions, Functions and Analysis: Selected Essays on Russell’s Philosophy by Peter Hylton (215 pages)
- A Companion to Philosophical Logic edited by Dale Jacquette (775 pages)
- Mathematical Logic by Stephen Cole Kleene (369 pages)
- Introduction to Meta-Mathematics by Stephen Cole Kleene (515 pages)
- Set Theory by Kenneth Kunen (388 pages)
- Wittgenstein’s Apprenticeship with Russell by Gregory Landini (284 pages) I’ve read it before.
- Russell by Gregory Landini (416 pages) I’ve read it before.
- Russell’s Hidden Substitutional Theory by Gregory Landini 323 pages) I’ve read it before.
- One Hundred Years of Russell’s Paradox edited by Godehard Link (644 pages)
- The Evolution of Principia Mathematica: Bertrand Russell’s Manuscripts and Notes for the Second Edition by Bernard Linsky (395 pages)
- Zermelo’s Axiom of Choice: Its Origins, Development & Influence by Gregory H. Moore (334 pages)
- Set Theory and its Philosophy by Michael Potter (316 pages)
- Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability by Hartley Rogers, Jr. (457 pages)
- Goedel’s Theorem in Focus edited by S. G. Shanker (256 pages)
- Set Theory and the Continuum Problem by Raymond M. Smullyan and Melvin Fitting (303 pages)
- Proof Theory: Second Edition by Gaisi Takeuti (481 pages)
- From Frege to Goedel edited by Jean van Heijenoort (655 pages) I’ve spent a lot of time on Goedel in this book but never got all the way through all his proofs though I have some understanding.
- Principia Mathematica by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell – Will focus on introductory material. I’ve spent a lot of time on this through the years.
- Antinomies & Paradoxes: Studies in Russell’s Early Philosophy (Russell: the Journal of the Bertrand Russell Archives Vol 8 nos. 1-2) edited by Ian Winchester and Kenneth Blackwell (246 pages)
I have finally decided what I should focus on – LOGIC & PHILOSOPHY of LOGIC.
I have a good library & have some background & I think good intuitions on the subject.
But I also have a great deal to learn & if I do it properly, I know some experts in the subject, who can answer questions – I hope.
Math & physics I think are more beyond my capabilities & I also have less intuition & contacts who may be willing to help.
Politics is easy – if one could have the right influence – but there are many that – if they had that influence could solve it.
No one has – or could – in my opinion – gain that kind of influence.
I am going to vote – I know the lesser evil.
I am going to continue my role in the Bertrand Russell Society.
Also, I plan to stay active in some local groups I am in, mostly to make friends with people I can have intelligent discussion with.
But my FOCUS is LOGIC.
I also plan to do some programming – that is related to logic & I find stimulating when I’m depressed.
I have many good friends now – more than ever before in my life.
I did the 1st 3 pdfs below in only a couple days.
But I know I need to read or re-read a great deal.
I feel very tired from the thought involved.
I must do routine things – such as programming to rest.
Philosophy is so much harder – and most of it is caused by verbal confusions which make no difference except in philosophy.
Thus it often seems not worth the effort involved.
I have to take breaks – it is also discouraging that I get almost no response – though I do see the pages get some hits.
This book (from 2011), is full of revelations about how personal data is used on the web – and how it is filtered. I’m only about 1/4 thru it. How can one obtain an objective view of the news – and get it across to others in present and future???
Predicate Logic is an abstraction of ordinary language mostly suitable for ordinary day problems. Also mostly adequate for mathematics. But we should not take it as absolutely correct. It seems to cause confusion when we think about quantum mechanics. We also have some problems thinking about purpose, free will, intentionality, etc. We don’t yet know the ultimate laws of the universe, and, even if we did, the complexity of the ultimate constituents would prevent us applying them in most every day circumstances. I agree with Daniel Dennett and Jerry Fodor (I believe) that Folk Psychology is the best we can do in ordinary life circumstances. Though we can try to understand the brain etc, I don’t expect that to help making everyday decisions.
I’m discouraged about philosophy. It seems inevitable than one must make vast simplifications that in the long run leads one to paradoxes. Language is adequate for ordinary purposes, but not philosophy, and in fact, that’s what causes many problems in philosophy. Some problems in philosophy may just be scientific problems which have not been solved yet.
I plan to continue reading some philosophy (I cannot help myself). But what to read some math and physics. I want to do some programming. Maybe on my differential equation program – there are a few things that I am not quite satisfied with. Also I might try something with partial differential equations. Also I might try working on the computer language “Russell”.
I think it has been long enough that I have enough new ideas that I need to revise what I have written. Also I hope I can express some better. Also I may round my ideas out even when they are not as original.
I seems that I have done what I am capable of in almost everything.
I think I am correct in my criticism of opacity (Quine, Stich).
But many words (variables and quantifiers etc in logic) do not simply stand for an object.
This gets very complex – I think it is really (mostly) a problem for linguistics – not philosophy.
I think the words other than those which stand for objects establish the “logical form” which
is a relations between those symbols in the mind. There are very many such relations. I think,
for the most part, all philosophy needs is those studied by symbolic logic. These are an idealization
of what occurs in the mind. But also I think there are other relations that philosophy often gets muddled
with, such as consciousness and free will. I am mostly satisfied with Daniel Dennett on these subjects.
I had thought of doing something with partial differential equations similar to what I did with ordinary differential equations.
But I think this is very hard.
I had thought of fixing some problems in what I worked on in general relativity.
But I think it not useful.
I have some ideas in quantum mechanics – but think, if possible, someone would have done it.
I had thought of working on port of Russell from c to Ruby.
But I think I do not have enough info and without more I could not succeed.
I have a new thought.
There is no relation ‘implies’ (other than material implication) (between propositions).
Where one one wants to say F(a) strictly implies G(a).
One really has a relation SI(F,a,G,a)
S believes it would be
belief_r(S,t,’SI’,’F’,’a’,’G’,’a’) & symbol_r1(S,’SI’,Si) & symbol_r1(S,t,’F’,F), …..