Calculus of Qualia 7: Equations vs. Qualations, Assertions with non-referential terms, Proofs, Logic

Abstract

General Introduction: In [1] a Calculus of Qualia (CQ) was proposed. The key idea is that, for example, blackness is radically different than █. The former term, “blackness” refers to or is about a quale, whereas the latter term, “█” instantiates a quale in the reader’s mind and is non-referential; it does not even refer to itself. The meaning and behavior of these terms is radically different. All of philosophy, from Plato through Descartes through Chalmers, including hieroglyphics and emojis, used referential terms up until CQ. This paper in this series of papers address equations vs. qualations (which contain non-referential terms), proofs, and logic. An example of an equation is x+2=4, which uses exclusively referential terms, even if some of them are numbers. A Qualation is like an equation except it uses actual non-referential terms (qualia), like █ ≠ ▲, and can be clearly non-trivial, like ¬((█ ≠ ▲) ∧ (▲ ≠ ■) → (█ ≠ ■)). (see below). This has implications for assertions, proofs, truth, etc. Incompleteness and truth are addressed in a different paper in this series.

Author Profiles

Mohammed A Z Habeeb
Department of Physics, College of Science, Al-Nahrain University, Baghdad, Iraq

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-07-07

Downloads
90 (#98,700)

6 months
52 (#92,846)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?