
Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy  - equilibrium
https://www.coursera.org/course/mathphil
======
loevborg
Having studied at the same university (though not with either of the
professors), I can confirm that both teachers are respected professors and
experts in their fields (logic and the philosophy of science). I'm sure it'll
be an interesting course.

------
saint-loup
>> Week Eight: Quantum Logic (orthocomplemented lattices, projections,
Gleason's Theorem, probability and logic).

Naive question: wasn't quantum logic a somewhat failed endeavour and a thing
of the past?

~~~
bobwaycott
It is not a failed philosophical endeavor, and there are still philosophers
engaged in the field. It had an early period beginning in the 1930s, and
another strong period from the '50s-70s. It has been helpful to the
understanding and development of probability theory, and continues to be
applied and investigated, including in current scientific experimentation.

The rise of quantum computing has created another contemporary dimension to
the field.

As it is, it grapples with properly understanding and formulating logic and
correct perceptions and descriptions of the world by building on classical
logic in light of developments in quantum mechanics. I doubt we'll see it
'fail' and fade into obscurity anytime soon. It's not exactly Cartesian
philosophy.

~~~
chrisdevereux
Nitpick: Cartesian philosophy might be obscure, but I don't think it's a
failed theory in the sense that, say, the phlogiston theory of combustion is a
failed theory.

Even if it was ultimately discarded by philosophers, it allowed the modern
field of epistemology to develop (which wouldn't have really been possible
previously), and (arguably) contributed to the development of physics by
excluding our mental vocabulary (thoughts, experiences, beliefs, etc.) from
the study of the physical world. At the expense of our ability to understand
said mental vocabulary perhaps, but an improvement on what had been thought
previously.

I'd compare it to how a particular module in a program might be important for
some time, since it provides some basic functionality that is required in
order to develop the rest of the program, but that after some time is no
longer needed and refactored out in favour of something more sophisticated.

~~~
bobwaycott
Of course, and my apologies because I was unclear with my language. I was
using Cartesianism as an example of faded, not failed, philosophical field.
That was rather foolish of me to word it so lazily. Thanks for the nitpick and
pointing out all the great things that resulted.

------
javert
I'm sure there is some interesting and valid material here, but the overall
project of doing philosophy via mathematics is nonsense.

As a sidenote, you acutally need philosophy to validate mathematics, not the
other way around.

~~~
Schiphol
You should probably read more of what these theorists call mathematical
philosophy (I recommend reading a couple of numbers of Erkenntnis, edited by
Leitgeb, and perhaps taking this course) before passing such a harsh
judgement.

As a sidenote, the kind of foundationalism about mathematics that you seem to
endorse is not the only option in the philosophy of mathematics -- although
this issue is largely orthogonal to the prospects of mathematical philosophy.

~~~
brg
I disagree. There is an asymmetric relationship between philosophy and
mathematics that belies the lack of influence and low import of the former.

Science, mathematics, and even art can all continue at no diminished pace
without input from philosophy's sophists.

