Curiosity Blog

When you formulate any logic predicate you automatically implicitly define a set of entities constrained by that predicate — i.e. a set of items for which the predicate is true. The set appears because predicate ‘works’ on a variable of variables, and variable is something that by definition can have multiple values, thus belongs to some set. So, when you define a predicate P(x) it is the same as to define a set {x| P(x)} and vice versa, union of set is disjunction of correspondent predicates and so on — equivalence between sets and predicates. Russell’s paradox Its original formulation is that a set of sets that don’t contain themselves is contradictory (indeed it can’t neither contain itself nor not contain). But that can be translated into a paradox of logic: Set of sets that don’t contain themselves is a predicate P(Q) =  ¬Q(Q) — then P(P) =  ¬P(P) — contradiction . _________ ..other articles..

Logic is a doctrine of correct judgment and it’s “our everything” (in the sense that it is necessary for any theory and learning). But to discover or ‘invent’ (formulate for the very first time) the laws of logic it is already necessary to think (judge) correctly — so there is a question: Isn’t there a kind of paradox? Or at least a vicious circle? Indeed, if you think correctly you can formulate correct logic laws and using them prove something (and maybe the way of how you judged about correctness of the laws formulated) — but if you don’t then the laws are invalid and you are unable even to find that. Seems the ability of reasoning is intrinsic for people (at least for those who is educated enough) and the ‘discovery’ of the ‘laws’ is just a result of observations (of own and other people thinking and judgments and their correspondence to a real state) and further refinements of them. But usually that ability is unconscious (intuitive) and informal (nobody judges like “A is true bec...

  Article: Are ethicists better people? Summary (SPOILER): • in general ethicists doesn’t behave more ethically than other people _________ ..other articles..

It can be said that because humans consist atoms which behave strictly in accordance with physical laws and thus completely determined and so on... But in the light of quantum discoveries there can be an objection that elementary particles are indeterminate — and again so on... But there exists much more fundamental objection against free will: there is no will for choosing a will. Let me explain: “free will” means an ability to decide what to do and behave accordingly, sometimes that decisions are ruled by our wishes or desires — BUT! How do you decide which wishes you are experiencing? In fact they appear without our control, we don’t choose them — that’s why the free will doesn’t exist. _________ ..other articles..

Forth  is an example of what I call “ elegant solution  of a complicated problem”. What will you do if you have a computer without any software to operate on it? It’s hard to imagine an alternative to what Charles H. Moore invented in 1970. Indeed, if you don’t have an operational environment to accomplish your goal you have to create that environment from zero. The question is only of ‘cost’ — efforts you will spend. The geniousness of the Forth language is that it is designed so that it can be easily implemented step by step from scratch and on each next step existing part of the system helps you a lot to move further. _________ ..other articles..

Because it always stands on the verge of the unknown , which means there is no real evidence for making strong judgements ,   hence no theory in any field of science can be invented without philosophy. Ok, in ‘global’ sense philosophy is important — but what about particular human individual? What can philosophy give them in their personal life?.. Being a great lover of philosophy I still unable to answer this question.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Translation resu

Or maybe better to say: what would be an ideal political system? Simple answer is that the best political system is “no politics”-political system. Of course that is not exhaustive definition, and can be interpreted perversely. But I’m sure you catch the idea. Saying more exactly “no politics” is not the only one of the conditions, but anyway it is necessary one. That is because politics is always about making people believing in something instead of judging based on strong awareness of the situation. And it is absolutely unacceptable in a  reasonable society .

https://am-curiosity.blogspot.com/p/sitemap.html