triclino Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 is there any place in physics where , the Aristotelian logic does not apply?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I am wondering about the use of topos theory and quantum logic a la Chris Isham. But I do not know enough about logic or topos theory to really say much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triclino Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 I am sorry i should have been more clear . By Aristotelian logic ,i mean the two value logic i.e true or false. So the problem becomes a problem ,of whether we have results in physics with a value more than two ( true or false ),or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 How tall are you? True/False? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 How tall are you? True/False?Assuming that questions can be either true or false is illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 What about fuzzy logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triclino Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 In which part of physics ,fuzzy logic applies?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted December 12, 2009 Share Posted December 12, 2009 I think people have applied fuzzy logic to quantum questions. You will have to do a literature search to find out more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dualitynature Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Computers speak binary and they seem to do just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Computers speak binary and they seem to do just fine. With binary it is trivially easy to write a sting that means 3 (in denary), therefore it is not limited to true false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Superpositions might be considered to violate this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dualitynature Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 With binary it is trivially easy to write a sting that means 3 (in denary), therefore it is not limited to true false. They can only arrive at 3 by combining 1s and 0s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Empiricism in general is about justification, not "truth." So really, there is no part of physics where Aristotelean logic applies. I'm pretty sure continuous mathematics can't be represented with Aristotelean logic, either, and obviously physics employs calculus. Disclaimer: I only vaguely remember studying logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 They can only arrive at 3 by combining 1s and 0s. And using denary you can only arrive at 13 using 1's and 3's, our number base is arbitary, it just happens humans like 10's probably due to having 10 digits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dualitynature Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 And using denary you can only arrive at 13 using 1's and 3's, our number base is arbitary, it just happens humans like 10's probably due to having 10 digits. Sure it's arbitrary as it doesn't appear to really matter what we call it so long as there are two (e.g. light-dark, positive-negative, electric-magnetic, 1-0, etc...) The main idea is that 2 is a minimum number or quantity. Possibly the minimum number for any real thing which exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vuquta Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Empiricism in general is about justification, not "truth." So really, there is no part of physics where Aristotelean logic applies. I'm pretty sure continuous mathematics can't be represented with Aristotelean logic, either, and obviously physics employs calculus. Disclaimer: I only vaguely remember studying logic. The axiom of infinity and then the axiom of the power set applied to the set of natural numbers generated by the axiom of infinity acquires the cardinality of continuity. So, Aristotelean logic is insufficient to generate the real numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now