On Jul 5, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > The logic behind my syllogism is as follows: > > Major premise: A = B > > Minor premise: A = C > > Conclusion: C = B > > > where A = Burign's fundamental triad, B = the unification of mathematics; > and C = the Peircean triad. >
List: This is an example of the mathematical concept of substitutions of equals for equals. It is not an Aristotelian syllogism. Sung prefers to create a unique perspective of a metaphysical system expressed in the language of physics. A syllogism consists of three propositions contains exactly three terms with three copula. The conclusion of a syllogism contains exactly two terms with one copula. The logic of a syllogism depends on removing exactly one of the three terms contained in the premises, leaving two terms in the conclusions. Thus, from a mathematical perspective, the net consequence of a syllogism is a SUBTRACTION, not a SUBSTITUTION. Many other differences between mathematics and syllogisms are known. And, of course, many other logics are well known. For an excellent introduction (but rather biased from my perspective) see: Graham Priest, A Very Short Introduction to Logic, Oxford University Press. It is also apparent the the logic of chemistry is not described by syllogisms or mathematics. If one starts with two terms, such as: Oxygen exists, and, Hydrogen exists, one CONCLUDES that water exists. Thus from two or more terms representing atoms (atomic numbers), one symbolically generate a third term, the name of the molecule as the some of the parts of the whole. This is the creativity of chemistry that CSP puzzled about for decades and, eventually, led to his philosophy of diagrammatic logic and the beta- existential graphs. Further, please note, from a modern perspective, that even if the logic of chemistry is not understood (outside of the strict closure of chemical notation based on the atomic numbers,) many of the MATHEMATICAL relations between physics and chemistry are well understood and mutually consistent and supportive of one-another. (I have intentionally formatted this sentence, which consists of many terms and many conceptual relationships, with the intent to separate out the associative logic between disciplines.) Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
