I am wondering how much of the semantic of basic philosophical questions can be expressed by formal arguments in modal logic. Here is one argument I formalised myself:

P1 ◇ ∀a, ∃x // GNB(x, a) ∧ C(a) ≡ S(x)

P2 ◻ ∀b, ∃y // GNB(y, b) ∧ A(b) ≡ F(S(y))

C ◇ ∀c // A(c) ≡ F(C(c))

The original argument, in ordinary language, proved very difficult to understand for most people I have tested with it.

Is it possible to prove the validity of such an argument in a formal way, given its apparent complexity for most people? How complex proven arguments can be? Could you give a representative example of a complex argument?

  • 1
    Is GNB a single predicate symbol? – Gregory Nisbet Jan 16 at 21:55
  • I am unsure of the symbolism; it would be a great help if you explain them. – Bertrand Wittgenstein's Ghost Jan 17 at 7:29
  • I'm not sure that the argument is formally valid; forget about GNB... we instantiate the universal quantifiers of P1 and P2 with c, but the x of P1 and the y of P2 can be different. Thus, we have C(c)=S(x1) from P1 and A(c)=F(S(x2)) from P2 and we cannot perform the required substitution. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jan 17 at 7:41
  • 1
    @GregoryNisbet Yes, GNB(x, a) could be rewritten as G(x, a) for example. – Speakpigeon Jan 17 at 10:42
  • 1
    @BertrandWittgenstein'sGhost ◇ ∀a, ∃x // GNB(x, a) ∧ C(a) ≡ S(x) just mean: For all we know, it is possible that whatever a, there is at least one x such that the predicate GNB is true of the ordered pair (x, a) and that the predicate C being true of a is identical to the predicate S being true of x. Is that enough? – Speakpigeon Jan 17 at 10:47

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.