I have been thinking a lot. I am considering (and inclined toward) the view that we must restrict ourselves to a first-order language. As I recall, Quine believed this. I think it destroys most of math. But science can, I think, get along with just rational numbers. It is possible… Continue reading
I have already used prolog in my philosophy. I have started preparing to use Xlisp and OPS5. I found a more current version of Xlisp than I had and compiled it & it seemed OK. (I also have a version of common lisp). I hope to get OPS5 working with… Continue reading
BR was mentioned on episode 19 season 4 of Cheers. I remember him mentioned on an episode of Quincy as well.
I find myself in agreement with Schneider – on substance but not terminology. I use “algorithm” to mean a step by step procedure to solve a specific problem in a finite number of steps. And computation to mean solving something by an algorithm. It is apparent Schneider is using the… Continue reading
I’ve started Susan Schneider’s book by that title – named after Fodor’s book. I’ve read just the preface and first chapter, which is an introduction. My impression, so far, is that I will be more in agreement with Fodor. I have started writing my reactions, but not yet enough to… Continue reading
What I need to realize is I cannot do all it would be good for me to do. There are an infinity of good things I could do. I can only do a finite number of things. (depending on how you count). Anyway I just need to try to accomplish… Continue reading
I finished it today. He has good arguments against many common assumptions. He shows the possibility of some alternatives, but they really do not go very far in a positive way. Of course it was published in 1975. I have much more to study.
Information about the BRS Meeting The internet was very slow trying to do this post – then suddenly sped up!!!!
I am done for now on my diffeq program. But I need to be doing some programming. I think I will be going back to the prolog programming I was doing a few years ago on philosophy.
Even though there is a non-denumerable number of real numbers, there is only a denumerable number of them we can represent in a finitary logic. The real numbers which we can represent can be set to a one to one correspondence to the rational numbers, or even just the natural… Continue reading