Formalization: Philosophy Forums

Formalization

kingoftsr
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 17

Posted 10/25/09 - 07:40 AM: Subject: Formalization	#1
Basically, I'm trying to formalize If God can create the soul without the body, then soul and body are different. I dont know whether it should be A-> B or A -> B & C i.e. should i formalize "soul and body are different" just as one sentence A....or as "the soul is different to the body" AND "the body is different to the soul".. Is there a general rule about when you do formalize in this way and when you don't? Because I have another example that involves "The boy and the general are the same person". Should this be "The boy is the same person as the general' AND ' The general is the same person as the boy'? Thanks

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 164

Posted 10/25/09 - 09:50 AM:	#2
3=1+2, 2+1=3 , 1+2=3 all these are equivalent, just different in our use of language
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

kingoftsr
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 17

Posted 10/25/09 - 10:03 AM:	#3
and so..in relation to my question? I'm asking about the convention in logic...

kingoftsr
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 17

Posted 10/25/09 - 10:46 AM:	#4
and so..in relation to my question? I'm asking about the convention in logic...

kingoftsr
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 17

Posted 10/25/09 - 10:46 AM:	#5
and so..in relation to my question? I'm asking about the convention in logic...

frank2010
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 34

Posted 10/25/09 - 10:52 AM:	#6
Well, as far as I can see the form "A -> B" is good, though I don't think that the propositional logic fits your desiderata: the logical relation between atomic propositions cannot express the inner complexity of what you mean to express. Maybe you should use the predicate logic. And I guess it isn't that simple to express the propositions you mentioned.

frank2010
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 34

Posted 10/25/09 - 11:33 AM:	#7
Here's my shot. Being given that 'C' is the property of "being created by God at time t1", you can say Ex Ey (((Cx) & not(Cy)) => x not= y)) Of course you need to parametrize the relation of creation in order to introduce the difference you need to argue for; in my attempt I've introduced a time-parameter. Moreover you can quantify over events (the event of creation) whereas the bound variables of my formula range over individuals. Well, actually I don't know in what extent it is correct to introduce temporal parametres into the actus essendi (the act of creation). Notify me if you find a more suitable fomalization.

kingoftsr
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 17

Posted 10/25/09 - 11:47 AM:	#8
sure well thanks for your help. we haven't actually learnt predicate logic yet. We are being asked to formalize it in prop logic..my question was really what is the convention for formalizing it? A -> B or A -> (B & C)

frank2010
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 34

Posted 10/25/09 - 02:16 PM:	#9
IMO there are at least two ways: 1) If [God can create the soul without the body], then [soul and body are different]. A->B 2) If [God can create the soul] [without the body], then [soul and body are different]. Why so? Because I take the proposition to mean: If [God can create the soul] and [not create the body], then [soul and body are different] If (A & B), then C (A & B) -> C I'd exclude "A -> (B & C)" for the difference relation is symmetric.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.