I "Laws of Form" by G. Spencer-Brown (1969)

AI Thread Summary
"Laws of Form" by G. Spencer-Brown, published in 1969, is questioned for its relevance and utility in contemporary logic and mathematics, with some viewing it as a historical curiosity. While it has influenced various fields, including semiotics and consciousness research, its practical applications in logic and mathematics remain unclear. The discussion highlights the contrast with Boolean algebra, which is widely used and taught today. Some believe that future mathematicians may find new utility in Spencer-Brown's ideas, potentially reviving interest in the system. Overall, the book's impact appears limited, primarily attracting niche interest rather than mainstream adoption.
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
243
I have received (unasked) a digital edition of "Laws of Form" (1969) by G. Spencer-Brown; I have glanced at it, and also at the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form. OK, another logical system; logical journals (e.g. by ASL) are full of them, and I am not sure whether this one stands out (beyond having some fuzzy interpretations that made it a "cult classic", as Wiki states). Wiki lists people it has influenced, but my question is: has the system itself gone anywhere, been of any utility in the rest of logic or mathematics (or even philosophy, although this forum is not for that) since then? Is it, in other words, anything more than a historical curiosity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it was just another guidepost along the way to some better idea. The books listed were mostly written a few years after this one with the exception of one in 2011.

In contrast, Boolean algebra is in use everywhere and is still taught in CS classes.

This is not to say that some future mathematician won’t find some primal utility to his ideas and kick off a revolution. There was some mention of the provability of some famed math problems and so if someone were to use it for that means then it could become mainstream once again.
 
Thanks, jedishrfu.
 
nomadreid said:
I have received (unasked) a digital edition of "Laws of Form" (1969) by G. Spencer-Brown; I have glanced at it, and also at the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form. OK, another logical system; logical journals (e.g. by ASL) are full of them, and I am not sure whether this one stands out (beyond having some fuzzy interpretations that made it a "cult classic", as Wiki states). Wiki lists people it has influenced, but my question is: has the system itself gone anywhere, been of any utility in the rest of logic or mathematics (or even philosophy, although this forum is not for that) since then? Is it, in other words, anything more than a historical curiosity?

The laws of form are still an area of interest, mostly to people interested in the foundations of logic, semiotics, consciousness research, psychology and sociology. Louis Kauffman (U Chicago topologist) has written many papers about LOF and other logical systems (see, for instance, Laws of Form, Majorana Fermions, and Discrete Physics at Researchgate)
 
Thanks very much, jdstarrett.
 

Thread 'Value of intuitionistic logic'

I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
View full post »

Thread 'Formal derivation of statement from Peano Arithmetic system'

I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
View full post »

Similar threads

Laws of Form" by G. Spencer-Brown: Is It Worth a Read?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 257)
Replies
5
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top