Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
“Scratch Notes on Quantum Logic, Turing, Goedel, Nash, Cell metabolism, N-tables, B-Tables, parts on Feynman for angular momentum probability area calculation of electrons in cell metabolism”

“Scratch Notes on Quantum Logic, Turing, Goedel, Nash, Cell metabolism, N-tables, B-Tables, parts on Feynman for angular momentum probability area calculation of electrons in cell metabolism”

Ratings: (0)|Views: 333|Likes:
“Scratch Notes on Quantum Logic, Turing, Goedel, Nash, Cell metabolism, N-tables, B-Tables, parts on Feynman for angular momentum probability area calculation of electrons in cell metabolism”

Getting things right.
“Scratch Notes on Quantum Logic, Turing, Goedel, Nash, Cell metabolism, N-tables, B-Tables, parts on Feynman for angular momentum probability area calculation of electrons in cell metabolism”

Getting things right.

More info:

Published by: WAPATTERSON-CHP-SYZEPI on Nov 22, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/13/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
“Scratch Notes on Quantum Logic,Turing, Goedel, Nash, Cell metabolism,N
-
tables, B
-
Tables, parts on Feynmanfor angular momentum probability areacalculation of electrons in cellmetabolism”
 
© William Alexander Patterson IVAll rights reserved22.11.2012B-Table

 
 

QN-Table
[]
 
Q
 

 The distinction shows the difference between a Boolean truth-table and a normative truth-table. An N-
Table harmonizes with everything from Spinoza’s
 Ethics
 
to von Wright’s
Contrary-to-fact-conditionals, his solutions to the Grelling Paradox, to his work on Modal Logic
, to Quine’s
 NaturalKinds,
to
Searle’s
 Intentionality
, to Wittgenstein’s
On Certainty
, to Boyd’s
 Modal and AuxiliaryVerbs
, to John Austin’s
 Behabitives
and his
Plea for Excuses.
The defining element of an N-Table is its proximity to natural laws and to natural law, from
Quine’s
 Natural Kinds
 
all the way over to Alfred Landé’s
Geostatistical Scattering of Particles with his Knife- Edge filters.
 
 
B-
tables correspond to Chomsky’s
 Linguistic Structures
, but not to his exposition of von Humboldt in
Cartesian Linguistics.
 
The latter fact is strange. The same strangeness applies to Carnap’s work on
linguistics.
I think this strangeness can be accounted for by looking back to Wittgenstein’s
Tractatus.
 
Wittgenstein’s simple statements about the contain
ment of 
a
in
b
(‘… is already contained’) states a
logical singularity.
W did not at that time see that fact. He did not identify it as such since to do sowould be to admit the strangeness, which was not his aim.
The fact is that a displacement in W’s l
ogical singularity explains the strangeness of those who haveused truth-tables as B-Tables and would never even dream of affirming that they anything whatsoeverto do with N-Tables; that would be taboo.The best place to see this displacement is in Quantum Logic. That is because the normal
divisibilityrelation
does not hold there, yet the classical mechanics of B-Tables is the medium.
I’
ll show this quickly:
3i. Why is it the case that by adding non-commensurability to classical truth-functional(Boolean) logic creates immediate statements of a quantum logic
as illustrated by Tanaka,1.
 
"
is a quantum world
 
def.
((
a, b) (a
 
& b
 
)
(aDb
bDa))
((
a, b) (a
 
& b
 
&
aCb))?2.
 
Because the divisibility relation D cannot be sustained universally for terms a,b withouthe existential assertion (
a, b) (a
 
& b
 
&
aCb).3.
 
Without this existential statement logic could not account for the conditional nature of reality and even grammar.4.
 
This is a different way of saying that the existential assertion ((
a,b) (a
 
& b
 
&
aCb)), as the qualification that makes the universal assertion ((
a,b) (a
 
& b
 
)
(aDb
bDa)) meaningful for actual states of affairs, is a factual statement of non-locality.
 
Note that Tanaka is an anti-
atomist and subscribes to Whitehead’s "individuals."
 
Briefly, the so-
called ‘classical’
divisibility relation D
must accommodate another divisibilityrelation, namely
C.
This is a
displacement of D
under quantum conditions. It is a displacement of alogical singularity.Looking at this in terms of the Propositional Calculus we can look at the ingenious solution that vonWright gives for the Grelling Paradox, otherwise known as the Heterological Paradox.
3.i.j. C. The classical situation. (Px
 
Px)
 
(Px
 
Px). In generality for all things: (
x)
 (Px
 
Px). The latter can also be written as:
(
x)(Px
 
Px). To express this for any
 
property, we can quantify with the variable P: ((
P)(
x) (Px
 
Px))
 
(
x)(Px
 
Px). Thelatter can also be written as:
(
P)(
x)(Px
 
Px).3.i.j.j. CM. Von Wright's calculus for the modification of the classical situation. The symbols aretruth-connectives (
,
, etc.), an unlimited number of T-symbols, and an unlimited number of P-symbols (Property symbols). An atomic expression of a complex of T-Symbols in quotes,standing immediately to the right of a P-Symbol. A molecular expression is a complex formed byone or several atomic expressions by means of truth-connectives. An expression is an atomic ormolecular expression.3.i.3.j. CM. The axioms are a set of axioms of the propositional calculus (with atomic expressionsof the calculus presented instead of propositional variables). The theorems are any expressionwhich may be obtained from an axiom or theorem by (I) substituting a T-Symbol in the axiom ortheorem for another T-Symbol throughout, or for a P-Symbol for another P-Symbol throughout,or (II) detachment (modus ponens).3.i.3.j.k. M. An introduction of the Greek letter

does necessitate a modification in the rules asso far stated. The logical space in the calculus is exhausted (collapsed) and the Greek letterbenefits from this by the assignment of a new definition to a symbol. The introduction of theGreek letter

is a definition of the symbol

through the identity of 
'X'
 
X'X', where X is a P-Symbol. From this definition we can derive from any theorem of the calculus a new theorem bysubstituting
not necessarily throughout in this case
for parts of 
X'X' which occur in thetheorem, parts of the form
'X', or vice versa.3.i.3.j.k.k. M. The modificational definition from the paragraph does indeed demand a newclause to the definition of a theorem
.
Because a theorem of our calculus is the expression
A'A'
 
A'A' (or
X'X'
 
X'X'). Where we substitute
'A' for one occurrence of 
A'A', we obtainthe theorem
A'A'
 
'A'. But because of substitutability we may in the last theorem substitute
for A throughout, thus obtaining the theorem
 
'
'
 
'
'.
 
'
'
 
'

is a contradiction. VonWright simply says that we could call this the Heterological Paradox.3.i.3.j.3.k. M. This substitution was not in any way permitted in the calculus by the rules of C andCM. The rules said that for a P-Symbol in a proven formula, another P-Symbol could beas a P-Symbol with regard to substitutability.
 
That this substitution occurs, von Wright says, can be-Symbol of thesame kind (type, category) as the P-Symbols" of C and CM.
 Again, a
displacement 
of the classical singularity of a proposition, or a P-Symbol and itsargument.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->