@JoshKings-tr2vc 5 ай бұрын
Yup, this is what I was looking for. I know this playlist is old, but it’s great.
@alannacronk3010 3 жыл бұрын
I've done Aristotelian, first order, set theory, and modal logic like broke my brain. someone on Reddit suggested I watch this video and I'm so happy I did. you really made my life a lot less stressful ty.
@AtticPhilosophy 3 жыл бұрын
Thanks! (And thanks Reddit!) To me, modal makes a lot more sense than first-order. You can do so much of it just by drawing nice diagrams!
@MajestyofReason 3 жыл бұрын
Loved the video! Modal logic is by far the best.
@AtticPhilosophy 3 жыл бұрын
Yes, modal logic is great! More coming soon.
@theMelMxshow 3 жыл бұрын
Thank you! Always on time for a subject I'm reviewing!
@AtticPhilosophy 3 жыл бұрын
Any time!
@Bunnokazooie 3 жыл бұрын
Hi Dr. Jago, thank you so much for starting this series on modal logic - something I've wanted to learn for a long time. I just wanted to say that the font was a little bit too small to see in my phone. (And a little too cursive). Nevertheless I eagerly anticipate the next video in the series!
@AtticPhilosophy 3 жыл бұрын
Glad you like them! Do you mean my handwriting? Yes good point, I'll try to make it bigger in future videos
@ravenecho2410 2 жыл бұрын
okie this is actually super cool, this is much more like kants thing on reasoning, always felt a huge gulf between logic and my experience, this is definitely tightening up like to like "reality"
@ravenecho2410 2 жыл бұрын
okie cool i think diamond q does follow: D: ◻ p → ◊ p 5: ◊ p → ◻ ◊ p q v q => (q -> q) V q => q, tho in the world the context is different. not sure we can evaluate like that
@ravenecho2410 2 жыл бұрын
i'm a little confused on how implication exists for the world, are we moving states? ie for world S5, obviously the other "states" which exist all have q as true, which implies w(5) -> [ ] q given arrow is like travel to, but would we not just simplify q V q as q? i'm also confused if q means (for some propositions in this world this is true and for some it's false) or if it means (all available states of movement have the quantification of the state q as being less than or equal to true : [ ] q -> q) please continue your series :)
@deepaks.m.6709 Жыл бұрын
This is amazing! You made learning it fun :)
@AtticPhilosophy Жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@djiajude9576 2 жыл бұрын
Super clear
@AtticPhilosophy 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@jlcarrera9670 2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for your help. Greetings from Ecuador
@AtticPhilosophy 2 жыл бұрын
You’re welcome!
@cristhianoduarte8320 3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for the amazing introduction. Short and straight to the point. I come from a different field (foundations of quantum mechanics), and what's driven me to modal logic was Aumann's theorem about "agreeing to disagree". We are here struggling to write up a meaningful version of Aumann's result in the quantum world, and we noticed that what matters there is the "logic" (in a very loose sense now) behind the argument. One thing led to another, and here I am, commenting on your (excellent) video. I got a question, though. Suppose you run and go through all the possible truth values of all possible propositions given a particular graph. Isn't possible to define a propositional logic having just "one world" and as propositions, say, objects like p(s_1) such that (i) you know their truth value and (ii) all the possible modal modifications are now pre-codified in/are part of the propositions? Sorry for the silly question, but I am learning on the fly. Cheers, C.
@AtticPhilosophy 3 жыл бұрын
Thanks Cristhiano! What you're doing sounds really interesting. Not quite sure I get your question. In modal logic, with just one world, there are basically two options: (i) it has a loop to itself or (ii) it doesn't (so no arrows). In (i), each sentence A is materially equivalent to []A and A (ie they have the same truth value in that model). In (ii), A is always false and []A always true. So in one-world models, the [] and don't really do much!
@cristhianoduarte8320 3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for giving my question a go. Very much appreciated. Let me try to make my question a bit more precise. Let me start with an example from category theory: forgetful functors basically strips away any underlying structure and takes you back to ordinary set theory. Another example, the set of integers and the set of rational numbers are nothing but the same, as there's a bijection between them. Forgetful functors are too radical, and sets of numbers are too poor structurally-wise, but I wonder if it's possible to fit modal logic within propositional logic while preserving its structure. If the question is still too cloudy, nevermind - sometimes I miss the good and old whiteboard interaction.
@philosophopotamus 2 жыл бұрын
This is wonderful! Is there a playlist that goes deeper into possible worlds theories?
@AtticPhilosophy 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks! There’s this one, have a look at the videos on QML & existence: kzfaq.info/sun/PLwSlKSRwxX0qXTZKnIT7l4_YAIWpJcZJ9 I haven’t done anything on the metaphysics of possible worlds yet.
@philosophopotamus 2 жыл бұрын
@@AtticPhilosophy Thank you!
@JohnnyTwoFingers 10 ай бұрын
Wow what a great video!!
@AtticPhilosophy 9 ай бұрын
Thanks!
@MrGamerFann 3 жыл бұрын
I was wondering if you could do a video on Epistemic and Doxastic Logic? I've got a test in 2 days and I'm still struggling.. Great video btw!
@AtticPhilosophy 3 жыл бұрын
Sure, I love epistemic logic! Won't be in time for your test tho .. good luck!
@konstantinosbabalis1695 2 жыл бұрын
@@AtticPhilosophy please do some epistemic logic ! Perhaps relate it to Game Theory? Thanks for your videos :)
@user-wl2rb3rh5c Жыл бұрын
How did the test go? :)
@gordonfelesina3170 Жыл бұрын
Great vid!
@AtticPhilosophy Жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@Perichoresis777 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@AtticPhilosophy 2 жыл бұрын
You’re welcome!
@yourfutureself3392 2 жыл бұрын
Good vid
@AtticPhilosophy 2 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@johngibson4882 6 күн бұрын
So, just to clarify, modal logic is inductive?
@AtticPhilosophy 5 күн бұрын
No, deductive. Good modal arguments preserve truth (at a world).
@qschroed 2 жыл бұрын
Does the graph formed by this necessarily need to be connected? All the examples in the videos seemed to have that property?
@AtticPhilosophy 2 жыл бұрын
No, any directed graphic is good. But unconnected areas of a graph make no difference, because box and diamond can take you only to connected states.
@funkysagancat3295 3 жыл бұрын
really cool
@AtticPhilosophy 3 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@ilseruys9189 2 жыл бұрын
At 12:19, wouldn't diamond P also be true since there IS in fact a world it can see where P?
@AtticPhilosophy 2 жыл бұрын
That’s right, you’ve got it!
@jean-pierredevent970 3 жыл бұрын
I have to think, hearing him, about Eric Idle from Monty Python. It's a certain British accent and not unpleasant at all. For the rest, it's too difficult for me although I notice some resemblance with Feynman diagrams, which I understand neither.
@AtticPhilosophy 3 жыл бұрын
Always look on the bright side of life.
@dantoinelevert8892 11 ай бұрын
can I learn modal logic without background in basic logic ?
@AtticPhilosophy 11 ай бұрын
Modal logic builds on truth-functional (aka propositional) logic, so it’s best to learn that first. But you don’t strictly need first-order logic to understand modal logic, and in fact, some courses teach modal before first-order logic.
@dantoinelevert8892 11 ай бұрын
@@AtticPhilosophy Yeah, I currently have an elective called Modal Logic but I have not taken Propositional Logic before lol
@funkysagancat3295 3 жыл бұрын
13:23 could it be an exclusive or?
@AtticPhilosophy 3 жыл бұрын
Always inclusive 'or' (unless it explicitly says otherwise)
@Nicoder6884 Жыл бұрын
I know you aren't a fan of deontic logic, and I'm not really one either, but I feel like you should have at least given it a passing mention when you talked about the different modalities.
@alannacronk3010 3 жыл бұрын
first order logic>>>>>>
@funkysagancat3295 3 жыл бұрын
you resemble daniel radcliffe
@funkysagancat3295 3 жыл бұрын
probably just cuz you're an white young british adult
@centauriigaming7698 6 ай бұрын
This is horrible, you didnt explain stuff, you told us the things that you know about modal logic and how can you give examples about types of modal logic.
Attic Philosophy
Рет қаралды 7 М.