Et argument som blev fremlagt af Immanuel p\u00e5 FRDB.org. Argumentet er ugyldigt, men det indeholder et interessant pr\u00e6mis. Det er interessant fordi, at pr\u00e6misset er sv\u00e6rt at formalisere.<\/p>\n
Argumentet<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.< all>p, p is contingent. Det interessante pr\u00e6mis er (4) for hvorledes skal man formalisere det?<\/p>\n Jeg formaliserede resten af argumentet s\u00e5ledes:<\/p>\n Dom\u00e6ne-xy: domme<\/p>\n Fx \u2261 x er kontingent 1. (\u2200x)(Fx) P\u00e5 dansk:<\/p>\n 1′. For alle x g\u00e6lder det at, x er kontingent. Det blev foresl\u00e5et af Anaximanchild at forst\u00e5 det s\u00e5ledes:<\/p>\n 4′. There does not exist distinct x,y such that x is necessary AND y is necessary.2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Dette er dog ingen formalisering, men det giver inspiration til hvordan man kan formalisere pr\u00e6misset. Jeg kom frem til dette:<\/p>\n 4. \u00ac((\u2203x)(Gx)\u1d27(\u2203y)(Gy))<\/p>\n P\u00e5 dansk:<\/p>\n 4′. Det er ikke tilf\u00e6ldet, at der eksisterer mindst en x s\u00e5ledes at, x er n\u00f8dvendig og der eksisterer mindst en y s\u00e5ledes at, y er n\u00f8dvendig.<\/p>\n Dog er dette mangelfuldt, da det stadig er muligt for x og y at referere til den samme dom. Dette hul m\u00e5 lukkes. Jeg fandt f\u00f8rst p\u00e5 en metode der er besv\u00e6rlig, men nu jeg har fundet p\u00e5 en anden metode.3<\/sup><\/a> Ideen er at introducere en relation som fort\u00e6ller, at de ikke er eller refererer til den samme dom:<\/p>\n Rxy \u2261 x er ikke den samme som y<\/p>\n Eller hvis man hellere vil have den positive variant:<\/p>\n Txy \u2261 x er den samme som y<\/p>\n Det skal dermed g\u00e6lde at relationen er enten sand eller falsk alt efter hvilken af ovenst\u00e5ende l\u00f8sninger man valgte. Dermed bliver (4):<\/p>\n 4. \u00ac((\u2203x)(Gx)\u1d27(\u2203y)(Gy))\u1d27Rxy<\/p>\n eller<\/p>\n 4. \u00ac((\u2203x)(Gx)\u1d27((\u2203y)(Gy))\u1d27Txy)<\/p>\n Fordelen ved den positive variant er at den kan st\u00e5 inden i parentesen sammen med det andet.<\/p>\n 1<\/a>http:\/\/www.freeratio.org\/vbb\/showthread.php?p=5673568#post5673568<\/a><\/p>\n 2<\/a>http:\/\/www.freeratio.org\/vbb\/showthread.php?p=5674260#post5674260<\/a><\/p>\n 3<\/a>http:\/\/www.freeratio.org\/vbb\/showthread.php?p=5674273#post5674273<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Et argument som blev fremlagt af Immanuel p\u00e5 FRDB.org. Argumentet er ugyldigt, men det indeholder et interessant pr\u00e6mis. Det er interessant fordi, at pr\u00e6misset er sv\u00e6rt at formalisere. Argumentet 1.< all>p, p is contingent. 2. 1 is necessary( by 1) 3.There is at least one thing that is necessary( by 2). 4.There is at most […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[424,1021],"class_list":["post-816","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-logik-filosofi","tag-formalisering","tag-prdikatslogik"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/816","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=816"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/816\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=816"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=816"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/da\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=816"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n2. 1 is necessary( by 1)
\n3.There is at least one thing that is necessary( by 2).
\n4.There is at most one thing that is necessary( ?).
\n5. There is at exactly on thing that is necessary( 3, 4)1<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n
\nGx \u2261 x is n\u00f8dvendig<\/p>\n
\n2. \u25a1(\u2200x)(Fx)
\n3. (\u2203x)(Gx)
\n4. ?
\n5. (\u2203!x)(Gx)<\/p>\n
\n2′. N\u00f8dvendigvis, for alle x g\u00e6lder det at, x kontingent.
\n3′. Der eksisterer mindst en x s\u00e5ledes at, x er n\u00f8dvendig.
\n4′. ?
\n5′. Der eksisterer pr\u00e6cis en x s\u00e5ledes at, x er n\u00f8dvendig.<\/p>\n