Return to Hughes-Buridan Book Review

If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

**Acronyms and symbols used in the Summary of Buridan's Logic:**

MoQ - Metaphysics of Quality OGC - One Global Context OGT - One Global Truth SOM - Subject-Object Metaphysics

*Summary of Buridan's
Logic*:

On page 21, Hughes concisely summarizes Buridan's own formal
logic. In one short paragraph he shows us how Buridan's formal
logic distinguishes itself from others. We can make inferences
about how Buridan's formal logic relates to our own work in Quantonics.
Here is the paragraph**:**

"I remarked earlier that, given Buridan's conception of what a proposition is, it is possible for one and the

same proposition to be both true and false, in the sense that two people may attach different meanings to it and it may be true under one interpretation but false under the other. It is also possible, without any variation in interpretation, for one and thesame proposition to be true at one time but false at another, since the things to which it refers may change in relevant ways; the proposition, 'Socrates is sitting,' for example, becomes false when Socrates stands up. But Buridan holds that,given a fixed interpretation of a proposition, it is quite impossible for it to be both true and false at the same time. Moreover he is also a strict bivalentist in the sense that every proposition is atany given time either true or false(assuming of course that it exists at that time). There is no trace in his thought ofany truth valueother than truth and falsity, or of any notion that a proposition might exist but haveno truth valueat all."

QUOTE: |
REVIEWER COMMENT: |

"...same proposition may be true and false...," i.e., interpretation is a function of context |
Buridan, to the good, violates one of many classical axioms. He recognizes truth is relative to context. He uses "interpretation" which we presume means interpretation of one global context by a sentient. This is one vote in favor of Buridan's thinking. His allowance for relative truth moves closer to being consistent with MoQ's many truths and quantum sciences', "isles of truth." However, he does not go all the way. Note carefully what Buridan appears to assume here. Is he assuming multiple contexts? Or is he assuming one context in which one sentient interprets a proposition differently from another's interpretation? Interesting, eh? We think he assumes a single context with two different interpretations. He assumes one context, but with relative truth assessed by two different sentients. Further, he apparently assumes sentients are objectively independent observers of OGC and objective propositions evaluated in OGC. But are sentients themselves contexts? Do not each of their
personal contexts interrelate, interpenetrate and commingle with
Buridan's surrounding assumed OGC?
Buridan apparently assumes not. Are there many contexts here,
and do they interrelate? Again, we perceive Buridan assumes not.
Does not potential for many truths exist here? We argue to answer,
"Yes." For example - The conventional one global context (OGC)
- Sentient 1's personal context
- Sentient 2's personal context
- New context formed by merger of sentient 1 and OGC
- New context formed by merger of sentient 2 and OGC
- New context formed by merger of sentients 1 and 2 and OGC
- etc.
Your reviewer agrees Buridan's incomplete conventional assumptions may form a limited common context for everyone. But when you merge one sentient's personal context with a single convention, a new context arises. And when you merge another sentient's personal context with a single conventional context a different context arises. One comparison depends on differences twixt personal contexts of sentients and unique interrelationships formed from each sentient and Buridan's common convention. |

"...same proposition may be true and false at different times...," i.e., function of time |
You, reader, must be keenly aware a predominant concept of time was and still is incoherent in any classical mind. A classical mind presumes time is a continuous and deterministic function. Time flows in a classical mind and a classical mind interprets
it variously as Even further, a classical mind then and now does not conceive
a concurrent infinity of Planck rate quantum flux which surrounds
and interpenetrates |

"...given a fixed interpretation of a proposition, it is quite impossible for it to be both true and false at the same time." |
From Buridan's perspective this is Similar to our next quote, an implicit edict here demands one global/conventional context at any time of assessment of a proposition. |

bivalence: any proposition
is, "...either true or false..." |
Buridan's assumption here is SOM's classical one global truth. Any proposition, if it exists, must be either true or false, period. Buridan admits different interpretations, but allows only one is absolutely and verifiably correct. Classically, this says a proposition, if it exists, is an object. Classical objects may only exist either in a true state or a false state in one place (one context) at one unique analytic moment (one time). |

"...given a fixed interpretation of a proposition..." i.e., any interpretation of a proposition is fixed |
By this statement Buridan insists on one outcome of a proposition.
He insists a chosen context determines an outcome of a proposition.
It appears he denies existence of multiple contexts each evaluating
said proposition at one same or different This is, again, Reader, you can see how this happens. Classicists indoctrinate
SOM's schism ,
i.e., they exist objectively. Propositions whose terms stand
for real objects become real, existing objects. realThe proposition
is real, so its assessment therefore must be either TRUE or FALSE!
Only one way that can happen is if one evaluates the
proposition in a single context which produces one truth result,
period.All of this denies quantum reality! All of this implies without assertion quantum science is a sophism. But we can see Buridan almost arrives. He indirectly admits
potential for multiple contexts (multiple interpretations), and
he admits truth as a function of time. By these two admissions
he relinquishes — he admits truth Yet he makes a profound mistake of assuming singularity of
context and time at any moment of assertion. Why? He still has
SOM's anchor pulling him back to legacy logic. He wants to retain
a classical ideal of one truth, in one context, at one time.
Unfortunate implications are OK, what does all this mean? Your reviewer interprets Buridan's
logic as absolute relative truth. Buridan's truth is absolutely
relative. Buridan's truth is relatively absolute. Hmmm... Buridan's
truth is an oxymoron... Hmmm... No, its relative As you can see, reader, we are going nowhere fast. This happens when we try to understand our physical world using classical SOM thinking. It does not work! SOMthinkers build towers of Babel. Buridan gives us more Babel! |

"...any truth value...no truth value...," i.e., absent truth value? | Buridan's insistence on bivalence
disallows fuzzy logic or stochastic logic. Buridan handles this
with SOM's dialectical knife — he says fuzzy propositions
are false, and he says affirmative propositions with 'empty'
subjects are false. See p. 18. However his bivalence allows a
concept of 'mu' only when any proposition is not real, i.e.,
when it does not exist. See p. 6. Mu means truth or falsity may
not be assessed by any logic because context is locally
incomplete or existence may not be established. |

Return to Hughes-Buridan Book Review

Quantonics, Inc.

Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass

Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730

USA

1-317-THOUGHT

(7Feb2001 rev - Repair minor typos.)

(19Dec2001 rev - Add top of page frame-breaker.)

(17Jan2005 rev - Typo.)

(26Mar2007 rev - Reformat document.)

(6Feb2009 rev - Make document current.)