OPERATIONALISM VS LOGIC. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES? —“Is your truth criteria of

OPERATIONALISM VS LOGIC. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES?

—“Is your truth criteria of mere pragmatic nature? It’s not like you can even talk about binary truth without formal logic, first predicate logic and some notion of a formal system.”—Timo Rohner

Great question.

Is decidability binary or ternary? Well, its ternary. True, Undecidable, False.

Why rely on binary logic? Deducibility.

Why Deducibility? (self reference) Logic is only a test of internal consistency.

What problems were Frege and Pierce trying to solve? Mathematics.

What problems did it not solve? Paradoxes.

What minor problems does operationalism solve? There are no paradoxes.

What major problems does operationalism solve? Lying. Fraud. Pretense of knowledge. (problems not present in mathematics).

What is the difference between mathematics and law? Action.

How can we test without self reference? existential possibility.

How does formal logic perform its function? Symbolic parsimony and self reference.

How does operationalism perform its function? Full expansion, and reference to the full set of dimensions of reality, (The opposite approach)

How do the logics differ? Justificationary versus Critical (survival from falsification).

What is the difference between analytic truth ( 2+2=4) and testimonial truth (I promise that the cat will appear black)? Logical versus Scientific.

Can everything expressible in operationalism be expressed in predicate logic? No. Just as mathematics cannot express law.

Can everything expressible in predicate logic be expressed in operationalism? Yes. Just as law can express more than mathematics.

Is operationalism a formal grammar? Of course. All language consists of formal grammar, the problem is removing the untestable statements from the language. In the case of english, that’s the verb ‘to-be’ (the copula).

Which has more explanatory power? Operationalism.

Mathematics and logic do not produce truth statements, but proofs of internal consistency.

Science and testimony in operational language produce truth statements: proofs of consistency in all dimensions: categorical, logical, empirical, operational (action algorithmic), rational (choice), reciprocal (moral), and scope complete (parsimony,limits, and full accounting ).

But the more practical answer is, (a) why are the foundations of mathematics expressed in ideal rather than real (operational) terms? (b) Why do people study predicate logic if it merely ‘trains’ you to think rigorously, but not rationally or morally in the full scope of questions?

My position remains that cantor and Frege caused a century of nonsense in mathematics (as predicted by poincare) equal to the damage caused by Marx, Boaz, Freud, and Adorno.

Mathematics is a trivial discipline in construction if stated in operational language. So is logic. So is argument. So is law. They differ only in the scope of grammar we include in order to reference the subset of dimensions of reality we include in our argument.

So… why would we EVER include only a subset of reality?