tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post4484929348098103887..comments2023-01-24T10:06:57.212-08:00Comments on (Blog&~Blog): Logical Pluralism, Monism and Logically Impossible WorldsBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06702722560438833244noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-44005983593476772032009-10-29T02:38:09.774-07:002009-10-29T02:38:09.774-07:00I haven't got a particularly well-formulated i...I haven't got a particularly well-formulated idea to offer, but I had in mind something like this: it might not be feasible to impose one standard of 'good' reasoning for all contexts, but the One True Logic could perhaps accommodate a number of such standards. For instance, if quantum logic is considered to reflect 'good' reasoning when it comes to quantum phenomena, but in most other contexts reasoning conforming to classical logic is good, then why not just make the One True Logic context-dependent in this regard?<br /><br />Depending on one's views, one might want to say that quantum logic is actually true in the context of quantum phenomena, while classical logic is true of some other phenomena; then we would have local variations in the One True Logic. But it may be possible to accommodate the idea even if one thinks that classical logic or something like it is the One True Logic in all contexts: it could still be considered 'good' or useful reasoning to use quantum logic in quantum contexts, if for no other reason then because we don't yet know how to model quantum phenomena in the One True Logic (i.e., we don't yet have that logic).<br /><br />I'm not sure if this flies, but you see the idea?<br /><br />I'd be interested to hear what you think about Field's paper...Tuomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08673467659602413154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-86759508026867601842009-10-28T17:04:50.089-07:002009-10-28T17:04:50.089-07:00Thanks, Tuomas. I haven't read Field's pap...Thanks, Tuomas. I haven't read Field's paper yet, but I will now.<br /><br />I'm not sure I see quite how the "local variations in the One True Logic" move is supposed to work quite yet. Could you say a bit more about that?Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702722560438833244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-22746585147863189542009-10-26T05:27:12.530-07:002009-10-26T05:27:12.530-07:00That's interesting Ben, and I think quite accu...That's interesting Ben, and I think quite accurate, although from what you said in the beginning I was hoping to see some more comparison between (a) and (b). I'm of course in the (a)-monism camp.<br /><br />However, there's one thing that should be kept in mind here: (a) and (b) are not necessarily mutually exclusive: I there are at least some reasons to think that good reasoning just is the type of reasoning which the one true logic suggests. <br /><br />Of course there will be cases where two mutually exclusive forms of reasoning will be 'good' in different situations, but an (a)-monist could for instance consider them to be local variations in the one true logic. There may be other ways to combine (a) and (b) as well.<br /><br />Have you read Field's recent paper? (http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1158/field_pluralism_in_logic.pdf)Tuomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08673467659602413154noreply@blogger.com