Sociology revisited

As I continue looking into the family, marriage is an important topic, which is really far more extensive that the brief hint I have suggests. Until I have better information, this includes topics of courtship and mate selection, Marital relations, forms of marriage, and marriage termination.

I've also done a significant expansion of my notes on the topic of sociology, which includes social structure and change, communities, and peoples of the world.
This subject depends rather indirectly on the sciences. These are considered to form the basis of other components of society. Likewise, studies of the human body and psychology are considered largely through other areas. Biography will be rather more important. Sociology depends quite heavily on areas I call anthropology, because these are cultural universals that are found in every society. Social foundations, on demography, human ecology, physical anthropology, and particular groups. I may have mentioned that although traditionally, anthropology deals with the study of entire peoples, most notably those at a pre-industrial level of technology, while sociology is considered to deal more with modern, westernized, urbanized peoples, I view this as an unfortunage choice. There is substantial overlap between the two, and it works better for me to divide the subjects differently.
The areas of culture, which include language, customs, arts, and technology as examples, are important in the study of sociology, and families, education, economics, government, and religion are also sufficiently universal to include.
A thorough study of human society would include and duplicate nearly all of history, so I am trying to restrict this connection to major developments in the study of sociology. These can be traced largely to the classical and medieval greeks and through modern times.

For particular communities, I have a brief sketch for Rio de Janeiro.

In continuation of my look at Asiatic peoples, I am making more room for Oriental peoples, which I consider to be Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, although with more information this could be redivided.

In antiquity, I have completed a review of the early 3rd millennium BC, which emphasises the peoples of Egypt and Sumer.

Integument, Galileo, and demography.

In study of the human body systems, I'm considering what's called the integumentary system; which consists of the skin and internal membranes.

Also, I have a little more space for information on the life of Galileo Galilei.

Within anthropolgoy, I have begun reexamining demography, including basic processes, population structure, and projection of population growth and decline.

Other areas are in progress.

Science progress

I finished up a brief section on the alkali group of elements, which may have been a little ahead of where I want to go with them. I will be continuing with expanding other groups of elements; the main block group, the transition metal group, and the inner transition metal group.

Within chemical thermodynamics, I have started an outline of thermochemistry. This includes dealing with four major quantities of interest; enthalpy, entropy, Helmholtz Free Energy, and Gibbs free energy. The third of these is little discussed in most introductory chemistry texts, but since it was mentioned in one of mine, I include it for the sake of completeness.

In Astronomy, I am taking a closer look at the terrestrial planets; Mercury, Venus, the Earth, and Mars.

In geology, I have finally fihished a section on interior geology, which wraps up the section for now.

Social change

I can think of several different ways to approach social changes. There is innovation; the creation of something new. There is adoption; the persuasion of other people to make the change. There is adaptation; changing something that already exists, and there is extinction; when something that was part of a society ceases to exist. These can probably be better described by application to particular changes.

I have an entry for Dacca, Bangladesh.

I've done another level of outline for South Asia. I had a little bit of difficulty deciding which to consider next, but that's settled now.

In history, I've moved into the 3rd century BC: The hellenistic Kingdoms and the increasing prominence of the Roman Republic, and will be sketching out major events for more detailed study later.

One of my readers criticized the Psychology section of the SKB. Now that I take a look at it, it isn't quite as bad as I feared, but I have progresses a little further. However, I will admit that it is incomplete almost to the point of being misleading.

Families, logic, and psychology

I've begun expanding the families section. In my view, this is quite possibly the least-well known and most underestimated of the various institutions of society.

This does not depend too heavily on natural science. There are family-like organizations in the animal kingdom, but animals and animal behavior, while they may serve for comparative purposes and illuminate certain aspects of human behavior, they are not good models for the human family.
Rather, human families are based on the peculiarites of the human body and human psychology and development. All people originate in families of some kind, but some have more prominent connections to their families than others.
The study of families depends heavily on social foundations, on demography, on human ecology (as in, how to feed the children), on physical anthropology, and human geography, as well as connections with groups of all types.
The structure of the family depends on cultural elements such as language and literature, customs such as where members live and how they work, and on posessions
At least tentatively, I have divided the subject into marriage; children and parenting, kinship, and particular familes.
Families are influenced by and in turn influence education and educational institutions, economics, government, and religion.
In many ways, they are the most numerous but least visible components of social structure, social types, and change, and of particular communities. There is some variation among the peoples of the world, but for the most part, I am focusing on the family in Western civilization.
The history of families will require considerably more time and space than I have here, and families have changed since early times. The prehistorical roots of families are poorly known or understood. They did occupy a much more important role in most ancient peoples than we have much experience with. Other institutions became more prominent in classical and medieval times. In the modern period, particularly in the last two centuries, there is evidence that the family structure of society has been greatly weakened. Certainly, there is less attention given to it by modern scholars than there has been to government and ecnomics.

A reader recently proposed a logical dual, which I interpreted as a request for a duel (There is such a thing as a dual in logic, and it has no discernable resemblance to a duel). Unfortunately, we reached no agreement on the rules to govern it. I proposed that we must agree on certain axioms and rules to determine which logical arguments before anything could be proven, the reader proposed that nothing can be proven at all. I suggested that observations of fact cannot be proven, and indeed, the things that can be proven are comparatively unimportant, so that's almost correct. I also said that things can be proven in mathematics that are much more difficult in philosophy, for several reasons, such as the greater number of axiomatic-type statements, the presence of uncertain statements that classical logic can't handle, imprecision of the language, the comparative weakness of methods of philosophical proof, and so on. So far, there has been no reply. I would have enjoyed a good logical duel.
But this prompted me to take a look for the first time in a while at the logic blogs I have linked, and I found a comment on Lumpy Pea Coat that's quite relevant to my interests. I have managed to work out the fundamentals of the 4-valued logic the person who inspired the comment on "Modal and Many Valued Logic" wants to do, but I haven't developed it beyond the basics. What he wants to do can be done, but having hacked a trail through that underbrush and done battle with the logical beasties that infest it, I can testify that it's likely to be a _lot_ easier to follow my lead than to make it work himself. It has to be based on concepts from the 3-valued version I discussed back in May which no one is yet paying any attention to. The logicians are correct, up to a point: It's not possible to do 4-valued logic in a way that's compatible with the non-classical systems they are accustomed to.

There have also been a few comments on my Sapience Knowledge Base, which will be worth mentioning here, but not today.

Catching up

In Chemistry, I've started a review of chemical thermodynamics. This includes energy changes in chemical and physical reactions, including the law of mass action, thermochemistry, electro-optical chemictry, Hess' law, and chemical equilibrium.

In astronomy, I've begun expanding the section on planetary astronomy, which includes the inner or terrestrial planets, the gas giants, and outer planets including Pluto and any other such objects.

In studies of the human body, I've temporarily finished work on the muscle system, and taken a few notes to locate Columbus in relation to other areas of knowledge.
In the area I call anthropology, I've temporarily finished work on the area I now call social basics, and I'm taking a preliminary look at North American human geography; I have approximately, regions of the Atlantic coast and Appalachians, Interior plains, Canadian shield, Western Mountians, and Mexico/Central America.

This work has been suspended while I've been involved with other areas of life, but it should reccommence this week. Among the other areas I've been involved with, a reader has initiated some some discussion of logic and the Sapience Knowledge Base which is currently dormant. These have brought out some ideas that I think are important enough to mention here, next time.

Institutions

In particle kinematics, I started to look at speed and velocity related quantites and the differences between them; standard textbook stuff. I've also started taking a look at Newtonian gravitation; a subject that is more complicated than it appears, because it includes most of classical celestial mechanics; such as Newton's law of gravitational force, gravitation field and flux, Kepler's laws and the orbital mechanics of two-body systems, and the complexities of three- and many- body systems.
In chemical elements, I'm making room for one of the major groupings of elements, the alkali group. This includes two groups of the periodic table; the alkali metals and the alkaline earth metals.
I finished a section on Stoichometry for now, that is the study of chemical quantities and their relationships.
In Astronomy, I finished a section on the sun. I don't recall if I said that, just for fun, I took note of the formula that gives how much one a man would weigh if he could stand on the surface of the Sun (which he can't, because the Sun doesn't have a solid surface, and it's hot enough there to vaporize even his bones. But I digress). But this is the kind of interlink I am interested in creating, because in the gravitation section of physics, I just now covered that very formula.
In biological organisms, I will be making room for the study of biological form. By that I mean size, habitat, mobility, body plan, and coloration: the external visibles.

For personal studies, I have the form for a biographical sketch of Gutenberg.
In human geography, I've completed a section for Africa, with more to come the next time through.
In culture, I'm looking at what I call "miscellanous artifacts", such as Medical equipment, toys, sculpture, weapons, and ritual and ceremonial artifacts. (as a side note, there are figurines found in archeological digs that might serve several of these functions, or more than one of them.)

I've also done a major revision of the header and aids sections of institutions. As a reminder, these are family, education, economics, government, and religion. This section is rather seriously lagging behind the others in development, and I will be including more tracks through it. There is some connection to physical science and natural science, but a lot of this is channeled through other areas. The human body has some connection, but psychology (e.g. family psychology, educational psychology, etc,) is notably important, and most prominent individuals have major affiliations with one or more of these. Institutions are composed of people, so social foundations, demography, human ecology, human geography, and particular groups are important. The connections of physical anthropology are a bit controversial and tricky. Institutions are also composed of culture; with shared and unifying ideas such as language and literature, behavior such as customs and occupations, and objects such as buildings and equipment. The structure of and changes in these institutions and their relationships help create structure and change in society in general; particular communities and peoples give specific examples of them. As always, the institutions of western civilization will get primary attention here, but others can and must be considered. Their historical development in prehistory is difficult to establish, given the difficulty of interpreting physical evidence, but they can be traced with more confidence in antiquity, through classical and medieval history, and in modern history.

In the area of social structure and change, I've finished a preliminary look at factors of change (Natural, demographic, cultural, and institutional); done a very preliminary outlne of Buenos Aires, finished an outline of the 4th Century BC (the "shakeout" following the death of Alexander the Great figures prominently)and started one of the 1920s-1930s. This includes the Great Depression and the beginning of World War II.

Culture details

In particle kinematics, I finished a review of the quantities used to describe position, and started looking more closely at atomic physics. Atomic physics includes areas of nuclear physics, electronic structure, ionic physics, and behavior of atoms. In chemistry, I did a brief overview of the noble gases; Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton, Xenon, and Radon. In Biology, I also finished a review of (nonhuman) anatomy and physiology. I have slightly more extended notes on Mohammed.

Going down further into language studies, I am also reviewing linguistics. As I see it, this includes phonetics (study of sounds), morphology (study of word forms), Syntax (study of language structure), semantics (connection of words with usage and meaning), and language variation.
Of somewhat less personal interest, I'm looking at graphic arts, which include drawing, painting, printmaking, cartography, photography, and animation. I'm not entirely comfortable with this arrangement, but it's the best I can come up with for now.
I'm also looking at customs. These include vital customs (sleeping, eating, elimination), customs of dress and adornment, customs of dwelling, customs of carrying and transportation, customs related to social interaction (such as greeting), and customs related to families, religion, and the like. These would naturally include subjects of etiquette and proper behavior.
I've finished a preliminary look at tools, which should help in the study of other areas.
I've begun a look at economic systems, which so far includes traditional economies, command economies, market economies, and economic system behavior (such as the business cycle, depressions and recessions, and the like.)

Religion is an area I've long wanted to give more time to study. The importance of religion and religious beliefs and their secular equivalents appears to be have been underestimated in the modern secular age, but these underlie many of the religious and culture wars in today's society. I also have sections for religious practice, organization, and the particular religions of the world

I've taken a couple of notes on Shanghai, and begun a review of Scandinavian people, including Danish, Swedish, Norse, Finnish, and Lapps. These are not necessarily closely-related groups except by geography, but I don't yet have a better classification.

For several reasons, lately I've been attracted to the broad sweep of history, especially considering literature and the arts, but for now, I've finished a preliminary look at the first 20 years of the 20th century.

Behavioral culture

I'm continuing work on the various tracks I mentioned in the review, with emphasis on topics I have opened, closed, or otherwise have some special interest. I'm running a little behind actual studies, but should be catching up soon.

After starting over in non-classical mechanics, I am working a little bit on gravitation. I have this divided into galilean gravitation, or near-earth; Newtonian gravitation, which is based on Newton's law of gravitation, and advanced gravitation, which deals with gravitation of non-spherical and non-rigid bodies. I've also finished a second look at subatomic physics: I've only touched this subject lightly, but intend to revisit it later.
In geological science, I've begun a section on the interior of the earth; with sections on the inner (solid) core, the outer (liquid) core, the mantle, and the crust. So far this is only a quick, elementary look.

Going on to psychology, I have a special interest in actual physical activity and various types of physical movement. These studies are often called kinesiology and not traditionally grouped as part of psychology. More often, it is included with studies of medicine.

Language is a major section of conceptual culture; I have it for now divided into linguistics, writing, and languages of the world. I'm pleased to get back to this area of studies.
Philosophy is also one of the major branches of conceptual culture. I've been avoiding the subject for years, because much of it is useless and I didn't want to become unbalanced. However, some of it is of great value, and there does need to be a place for it in a study program.

I've also completed a major review of the aids to of behavioral culture, comparable to the one on conceptual culture. This includes areas of customs, occupations, performing arts, sports and games, and events. So far, this does not depend heavily on studies of science and nature, but eventually connections will show up. It depends more clearly on the human body and psychology (for instance, in the subject of kinesiology mentioned above), as well as particular artists, athletes, performers and musicians, and other contributors. These are more clearly social activities than the areas of conceptual culture. These make heavy use of language, literature, graphic arts, mathematics, applied sciences, and philosophy, and various types of artifacts. They form a significant part of families, economics, education, government, and religion, which influence them considerably. There are also examples in social structure and change, communities, and the various peoples of the earth (for instance, American football, african dance, oriental music). Information on this from prehistory and antiquity is rather indirect; it becomes more prominent and accessible in classical and medieval times and in modern centuries.

I've done a preliminary classification of industries and closed this subject for now in preparation for considering other areas of economics. I've also closed the subject of particular governments, which also closes government in general for now.

I have a preliminary note on Moscow, which just happens to coincide with closing Northeast European peoples. My studies in history are progressing; the 30th century BC is still very ancient, in classical times I've reviewed the beginnings of the Macedonian conquest, and in modern times, have a place for examining the beginnings of World War I.

Conceptual culture

Continuing the review, I recently did a major update of the introductory and help section. There are plenty of connections to science and nature, but these aren't yet specific enough. The various subjects of conceptual culture are not only rooted in the human body and mind, but there is also a category for important authors, artists, mathematicians, philosophers, and other innovators. Like areas of study, these are not solitary activites, but are strongly influenced by interaction with other people and membership in groups.
This area specifically includes language, literature, graphic arts, mathematics, applied science, and philosophy as major categories, though I have considered elevating rhetoric to the same level.
These are connected closely to such things as customs, occupations, performing arts, and to various material objects, such as physical books. All the institutions of society, including families, education, economics, government, and religion make use of and help shape these areas of culture. The ways in which social structure, type, and change, and particular communities influence, and examples from specific peoples such as english-speaking or asiatic peoples are also connected. Roughly speaking, language, rhetoric, graphic arts, and parts of applied science have existed since prehistory; literature, mathematics can be reliably traced not much before antiquity, and philosophy has arisen mostly during classical and medieval times.

A major portion of conceptual culture is applied science. This includes subjects such as agricultural science, engineering, navigation, communication theory, accounting, and medical science, many of which involved applied mathematics.
In material culture, I have been working with major classes of tools.

In economics, I have finished a rough classification of industries. In government, I have a rough categorization of particular governments as local, national, and international.

The major area of sociology, in the social structure and change section, I'm working with factors of change. For communities, I added some notes on Karachi, Pakistan; continued working on Northeast European peoples, and for nonwestern peoples, I am working with South Asia, (yes, including Pakistan; later I hope to connect the cities to particular nations.)

In history, I started in on the early 3rd millennium BC, (Sumer and the Old Kingdom of Egypt, primarily), I'm still working on the 4th century BC (Greeks), and the early 20th century (1900-1920, which includes most notably World War I). I can include only the most broad, general notes about these so far, but as I progress, the details become clearer.

That's a ride through areas that I've been particularly working on. From here on, I'm going to continue to make notes of areas when I finish one section, start another, or have found something particularly interesting satisfying about some one I'm working on.

Review

Come with me for a ride. I'm going to start with a summary of where I am and what I am doing on each "track" of study.
Starting with Physics, I started a new track in particle mechanics before I had quite finished the last one. Right new, I'm reviewing my methods of describing position, and I've now finished the older track with a paragraph or so on quantum mechanics. I'm also working in Electromagnetism, specifically electrostatics, and I started a review of subatomic physics and took notes on the types of subatomic particle.
In chemistry, I'm taking a closer look at the elements. I may have mentioned that Hydrogen has a unique place and gets more attention than many others. In describing chemical change, it's important to look, not only at what substances are present, but how much. In local astronomy, I'm reviewing information on the sun. In Earth science, I've finished a section describing major landforms. In biology, I'm reviewing the major kinds of body organisms and systems in the Anatomy and physiology section, and on a separate track, I'm focusing a little more on concepts of biological communities.
In studies of the human body, I've been looking at muscle systems. There are too many of these for me to concentrate on memorizing all of them just yet; I'm considering only the major groups, with more details to come later. In psychology, I've finished a section on sensation. For individuals, I've done a skeleton outline of things to consider in studying the apostle Paul.
In the area of Anthropology, I'm starting another track with studies of social psychology. I should probable rename this, because on closer examination of the area I called presentation, I found that I need an area that includes the particularly social applications of psychology in general. On the other track in Anthropology, I'm dealing with Africa.

Culture

A couple of notes, regarding education in general.
For one, I've noted some common problems in college campuses, and think:
Is this what we call higher education? Go to college, learn how to party and drink yourself stupid, sick, and into an early grave and maybe pick up a few sexually transmitted diseases along the way?
The other is that one of my projects involves language study, using the Bible as a source. And why should I be abashed about this? Whether one is religious or not, so much of modern philosophy has been shaped either by or in reaction against the Bible that no one can be considered fully educated without having at least read it.

The area I call culture includes broad divisions of conceptual, behavioral, and material culture, but this is a very high level and abstract point of view. It includes such products of human activity as language, performing arts, and tools.
This is more directly based on more of the physical and natural sciences than personal studies or anthropology are. It depends heavily on the human body, psychology, and particular individuals and contributors, and depends as well on areas such as social psychology, human ecology, physical anthropology, and particular groups. The various social institutions, such as families, education, economics, government, and religion are at least in part composed of cultural elements and influence and shape them. Various artistic styles and fashions can be examined using the tools of social structure and change, the varieties among particular communities, and the peoples of the world. I am most interested in the culture of western civilization, but definitely want to consider others. In prehistory, material culture is nearly the only source available; the conceptual areas become available in antiquity, and the behavioral areas are better understandable in the classical and medieval and through modern times.

Astronomy

Although I am not as interested in Astronomy as I am in other areas, I recently did a significant rewrite of the introductory and auxiliary material. Most of my interest is in the Solar system, since this has some practical application, and next is stellar astronomy, for science fictional purposes. I'm not really interested in galaxies or cosmology, since those aren't where I look for life's meaning.

But all areas of astronomy depend rather heavily on physics. Mechanics including gravitation, electromagnetism and optics, thermodynamics, and the structure of matter correspond to important divisions of astrophysics. Chemical substances and the various changes and reactions that go on in space and extraterrestrial environments are also fundamental. Earth science and Biology are generally less useful in astronomy.
Space is generally inaccessible (to most of us, anyway), and psychology is rather minimally useful, but I want to take note of particular astronomers. The communication and other interactions among astronomers are also important, and the role of language, literature, graphics, mathematics, applied sciences, and even philosophy are essential to its study. There is room for amateur as well as professional astronomers. Telescopes and other equipment are also highly useful if not absolutely essential. I have not oberved any significant connection of astronomy with families, but education, government support, and even the interaction of astronomy with religious belief are worthwhile areas of study. Nearly all major civilizations have studied the heaven, but the heritage of western civilization has produced by far the greatest body of knowledge. This is among the oldest of the sciences and goes back to antiquity, but greek astronomy was an important precursor of modern astronomy.

Anthropology

This is a major section where I'ave been able to make significant progress, because I had so little information already. Like personal studies, but even more so, this is largely a collection of areas of my own creation.
It depends heavily on the sciences, including both earth science which has the basis for geography, and on biology, especially higher biology. Even more directly and immediately, it depends on details of the human body, psychology, and particular individuals. This is sometimes difficult to separate from cultural areas such as language, literature, graphic arts, mathematics, applied science, and philosophy; from customs, occupations, sports and games, performing arts, and events, and things such as foodstuffs and diet, clothing, buildings, vehicles, communications media, tools, and other kinds of artifacts are also related. Likewise, this is closely connected to family, educational, economic, government, and religious structures. This is best studied from the point of modern western civilization, although other peoples can make a significant contribution. Studies of society have been done since antiquity and in classical and medieval times, but these did not really become sciences with the use of quantitative information until the 19th and 20th centuries.

Chemistry

Over the past few days, I've finished the electromagnetism-thermodynamics track in physics and actually started the Structure of matter one.

I've also gone through a major review of my introduction to chemistry. This depends heavily on all areas of physics, and is more fundamental than other areas of science, although these provide illustrative material and common directions for research. Because of the many poisonous elements and compounds that exist in nature and more that are manmade, it's a bit more important to consider the effects of the body, and identification of them. The lists of prominent scientists I've been using, unfortunately, lean more to physics than chemistry. The role of social activity and particular groups of chemists are similar to those I've mentioned in connection with physics and science in general. Language, literature, graphics, mathematics, what I call the applied sciences are also important, although mathematics and philosophy are a little less emphasized, and the other areas a little more, than is the case for physics. I'm just mentioning cccupations and the like, and the tools and apparatus of chemistry at present. This is closely connected to education, with economics and government also having an important role; religion has little to say about chemistry. As with science in general, this is best known and studied in Western civilization, and the history of chemistry is also an area I would like to look at more closely.

In other areas, I've gone through geologic processes and am currently looking at the landforms they produce. I've split biology into two tracks, one looking at organisms (now beginning anatomy and physiology), and the other now looking at population biology.

I'm taking another pass through the human body and am now looking at the skeletal system, and another through psychology, now looking at the senses. I also started over with biography and have brief summaries for Moses, Buddha, Confucius, and Aristotle. I've taken a look at Eurasian human geography and will be doing an introductory summary of Africa.

I started a double track through what I called conceptual culture, one on mathematics and the other on applied sciences; finished a look at events, and started looking at categories of tools and machinery. Also, I finished a review of major types of societies and am moving to social changes, finished a preliminary look at southeast Europe and am looking at the northeast part, finished a look at the Middle east and am looking at India, and have finished reviews of the 5th century BC (the golden age of Athens) and the 19th century.

Physics

I discussed this a few months ago, on May 3, and haven't changed a great deal.

My more recent approach to physics has four tracks I'm following. I've decided to take two tracks through mechanics, one through classical and one through non-classical mechanics. It is with great relief that I have finished a long, slow, slog through classical mechanics (and I'm about to go back through it again), while I'm starting the nonclassical track with gravitation. The third physics track involves electromagnetism and thermodynamics. The fourth track will deal with the structure of matter, and I haven't actually started yet, but will soon.

Personal Studies

In contrast to the sciences, the areas I call personal studies are not nearly as well developed. Studies of the human body are often considered within the realm of science, but psychology is much less well organized than, for instance, biology. Biography is often considered part of history. I haven't found a better name for the collected study of human beings as individuals.

This depends quite heavily on the sciences, most notably biology, although the other sciences do have contributions. People are social beings, and much of their behavior is so connected to others that the personal studies are seriously incomplete without the various areas of anthropology. Language, literature, graphics, mathematics, applied sciences, and philosophy are also vital. These subjects are closely connected to customs, occupations, sports and games, performing arts, and various events, and supplemented by a huge range of objects and materials. Families are more important in personal studies than they are in science, but education, economics, government, and religion are no less significant. The scientifically-oriented aspects of personal studies are best known from western civilization, although other peoples have much to contribute. Studies of the human body began in antiquity and in classical and medieval times, but there was a great deal of speculation and inaccuracy until modern times. Psychology as a science hardly existed before the 19th century, and gross errors still persist. Fortunately, there is a great deal of information in biography that can possibly be applied to it.

Science progress

The point of reviewing the introductory and aid material is to help focus my attention on those other areas of knowledge that are most useful for the development of science. I intend to widen my coverage of physics and chemistry, begin another review of astronomy, and widen my coverage of biology; I've just finished a review of cell biology and will be looking at organisms.

In the area of personal studies, I've finished a review of the human body in time to start over with all major sections.

I've also started looking at human geography. In areas of culture, I've finished a look at graphics and am going on to mathematics, finished a review of performing arts and moved on to events, and finished a review of transportation technology and am going to communications technology.
My studies of the institutions of society has been too slow lately, so I've started a double track and am looking at both economics and government.

In history, I've started at the beginning with prehistory; currently taking a look at the 4th-8th millennia BC, and I'm also looking at the early classical period, with the 5th century BC, which includes the classical Greeks and the decline of the Persian Empire.

Science

I've already described my outline of science and nature, but now I can connect it better to the introductory and aid material.
The human body poses various limitations on the study of nature. Without the aid of technology, there are many places we cannot go and things we cannot see. Our unaided senses are limited. The desire to understand, as well as appreciate, nature has roots and connections deep in human psychology. Much of what we accept as "common knowledge is the product, not of the idle curiosity of the masses, but the disciplined and skilled investigation of comparatively few scientists.
The study of nature is not a solitary endeavor. Rather, it depends on cooperation and communication among scientists, some of whom may be widely separated in time and space. This communication includes scientific language and literature, graphs and pictures, and the specialized language of mathematics. Applications of scientific principles have resulted in increasing ability to percieve and understand nature, and science can in part be understood as an outgrowth of philosophy. Scientific research has become a profession, but it's not entirely closed to amateurs; especially with the help of groups such as the Society for Amateur Scientists. The role of families in scientific research and study is one I would like to take a closer look at, but science is much more easily associated with the educational establishment, with some connections to economics and corporations, and some to government. Science and organized religion often present competing philosophies and systems of belief. Science is most easily pursued in industrialized or at least agrarian cultures and is most strongly connected to Western civilization. Most surveys of its history acknowledge the contributions of the Greeks in early classical times, with only limited progress until the scientific revolution of the modern era.

Review

I've been busy with other things and haven't updated here for about a week, but I have made progress in almost every area.
Before too long, I'm going to be expanding my introductory and aid material for science. In physics, I've made it through a round of study of electromangetism, moving to thermodynamics. In Astronomy, I've finally finished a round of work on Stellar astronomy, and am going to higher areas. In Geology, I'm looking at rock formations.
I've made it through a review of Psychology and have started that subject over again to broaden and deepen the preliminary notes. In the areas I call Anthropology, I've finished a look at physical anthropology.
In Areas of culture, I'm progressing through graphics, performing arts, and transportation devices.
Institutions have been going rather too slowly, so when I finished a look at education and started on economics, I'm also starting another track with government.
In the area I call Sociology, I'm looking at social types and a few major Asian cities, and I've split peoples of the world into Western Civilization and another track on other civilization.
In history, I finished the pre-modern history section for now, and I'm starting back at the beginnings in Prehistory, classical and medieval history, and I've finally moved into the 19th century.

Germanic peoples

I've finished up my latest work on this section. I don't have a lot of detail yet, but I should have more the next time I go through it.

Geology

I didn't have time to take the high school physics course, "earth and space science", nor have I had the opportunity to take earth science or astronomy in college, so what I know about these subjects I've picked up in independent study and reading. As I grew up in Arizona and lived in Utah, and had opportunities to see the various landforms that fascinate geologists (such as the Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, Zion National Park, Petrified Forest, etc.), I've always been mildly curious about how these things formed. And I've always liked chemistry. It's only in the last few years that I've taken the trouble to dig into the chemistry of rocks and minerals.

In physics, I've made progress from considering rigid body mechanics into non-rigid mechanics, and from magnetism into optics. In Earth science, I'm moving from minerals to rocks. In psychology, I've moved from early consideration of what I call mentation into behavior. I refreshed my memories of Gutenberg, Columbus, and Newton. I have moved from early consideration of literature to a closer look at graphics, and from occupations into sports and games.

Progress

In Chemistry, I've moved from investigating chemical substances back to chemical change. In studies of the human body, I've moved from disorders to the life cycle, and in Biographies I've gathered a little information about Mohammed. In the area I call sociology, I've started over on social structure and change, and split off communities into a continuing work area. In Modern history, I've progressed to the 18th century.

More progress

In physics, I've moved from electric current to magnetism. There is a distinct mathematical symmetry between magnetic and electric fields, as expressed in Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism, so I've been wanting to organized the two subjects somewhat in parallel. I found a phrase in an older physics textbook that gives me a handle on it. Directed current elements are to the magnetic field what magnetism what electric charges are to the electric field. A major difference is that current elements don't exist in isolation. That gives me an implortant clue to organizing my discussion of magnetism.

In psychology, I've progressed from consciousness to mentation. I've expanded information a little on Confucius, Jesus, and Paul, I've moved from considering Demography to human ecology (nodding in the direction of Katrina), from language to literature, frlom clothing and dress to buildings, and from families to education. I'm doing a top level review of what I call sociology, and I've moved from the Latin group of western peoples to the germanic group.

More progress

In Physics, I'm following two tracks; still in Rigid body mecahnics on the one, and going through magnetism on the other. In Biology, I've finished with molecular biology for this pass and am starting to take a closer look at cell biology. In studies of the human body, I've finished a look at body systems and will next be looking at diseases and disorders, briefly. I'm taking another pass through Biography with a closer look at Gautama Buddha. In the area I call Anthropology, I've finished a pass through Social psychology and am moving to demography; within Culture I've finished a pass through customs and am looking at occupations, and I've finished foodstuffs and am looking at dress. In History, I've progressed to the Late Medieval period and the 17th century. Other areas of study are also progressing.

Little progress

I had a shorter study session than I wanted and didn't make much progress this time, but I have started on chemical mixtures. In psychology, I finished the section on movement and will be looking at consciousness.

More progress

In Chemistry, I've made another pass through chemical compounds and added a few more definites and possibles to the list, and in Astronomy, I'm working through stellar astronomy. I've finished a section on Earth history and will soon be cycling back through geology. I've also finished up a pass through religion and will be cycling through families, and I've progressed to a preliminary look at early Medieval history.

My analysis of customs is turning out to be more productive than I thought it would be. I had noticed in studies of psychology that motor activities, or what seems to be called kinesiology (the study of movement) are not typically studied. A look at that are has led to better understanding of social psychology, and in turn, customs. That's an example of the kind of connections I want to make with this program of study.

Sociology

The first topic of what I call Anthropology is something I call, for lack of a better term, social psychology, or social fundamentals. I'm having to draw much of my information from sociology textbooks. Based on my reading of these, I've reorganized my notes on the subject into Presentation; which includes how people appear and present themselves (nonverbally), whether it is involuntary and unintentionally or otherwise; Interaction, which involves communication and may include passing encounters or repeated social relationships; Norms, which I consider to be social habits, and Groups, which include the formation, structure, and behavior of groups of people.
I'm also starting to look at language, customs, and foodstuffs; and I've started another pass through western civilization, and 16th century history.

More progress

In physics, I've started on another pass through electromagnetism. I'm taking a closer look at the major groups of chemical elements, have started looking at the minor bodies of the solar system (asteroids and comets), and have finished a pass through biology and am back to molecular biology. In psychology, I've made notes on the major systems of sensation and am looking at a classification of movements. I've also finished a pass through what I call anthropology and soon want to get into one of the basic divisions that has a lot of hidden content. I'm close to finishing up three major areas of culture, a summary of religion, and am starting on some cities; I've also finished the last round of review of peoples of the world and the future, so I can look at my introduction to modern history.

Circulation

A couple of the more important areas related to science but not divisions of it are individual scientists, scientific literature, mathematics, scientific education including research, and the history of science. I'm still making progress in the particular areas I mentioned yesterday. Among the more interesting things I looked at this morning were the human circulatory system, and trying to summarize what I know about mechanisms of social change. In history, I've progressed to late classical history (the 1st 5 centuries AD., so I should still be there for a while.

More progress

More updates on what I've been working on. In physics, I finished slogging through particle mechanics, so I can move on to the mechanics of rigid bodies, and I finished a pass through the structure of matter, so I can go back to the beginning and connect science to other areas I've been working on. I've started back at the top in chemistry, am looking at the planets in astronomy, have started with physical geography, and am working on biological history. I've started some notes on major systems of the human body, gone back to the beginning on psychology, and added some more people to the biographical list. Within what I call Anthropology, I've advanced to human geography, and I have entries in language, occupations, and a couple of areas of material culture; I've reviewing governmnent, am looking at social change, American indian peoples, early classical history, and am preparing a couple of sections on the future. I'm touching these subjects fairly lightly at the moment.

Progress

Rather than go through the entire list again, I'm just noting areas where I have finished a unit of study for now and moved on. Eventually, I'll come back to the others. In the past few days, I've progressed into Solar system astronomy; I've picked up some of its major physical properties so that I can discuss physics in more detail next time around. In Earth sciences, I'm reviewing physical geography. I've decided that the human body should be an area of regular study, and I've picked up psychology as another. I now have a couple of notes on major biographical figures and I can continue to add more. I've finished up the summary of material culture and will be going back to language. I'm working on types of society, a brief look at the peoples of Africa and have started another pass through classical and medieval history.

Summer vacation

I took a couple of wweeks off from my study projects, so the last month or so might as well be considered as my "summer vacation". There is a series on education on Meridian Magazine that expresses some principles I agree with. It's written from and principally to LDS, but I think the principles are universal.

I thought I'd summarize some things I'm working on. I've been slogging through particle mechanics (a part of physics) for a while now; reviewing the structure of matter (also part of physics, but overlaps with chemistry), and summarizing some principles of chemical change. I just finished a pass through astronomy and am starting another. In earth science, I'm looking at the atmospheric sciences, and for biology, I'm starting the ecology group. I just finished a review of psychology, so I'm going back for another look at the humam body, and going on to a little more biography. I'm also looking at the relationsh of people to the environment, finishing a summary of material culture, have started another pass through economics, I'm looking at the structure of communities, the peoples of Asia, a review of ancient history, and starting a review of the 20th century.
I'm reviewing all these subjects a little bit at a time. So far, these are fairly superficial reviews, but each time I go through them, I add a little more depth.

Heartland

I've been absent for the past couple of weeks due to personal issues, but I'm back.

I ran across a book in the library; Unfortunately I don't remember the title, which discussed the problems faced by rural farming communities. It mentioned an interdisciplinary approach, and discussed several things that I've noted, plus a few that I didn't. I've noticed that there has been a tendency over the past few decades away from small or family farms; few people can make a living from them. I've also noticed that government policies tend to favor the large or corporate farmers, while doing little for the small farmer. I wasn't aware that agricultural supplies such as fuel, fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides as well as purchases of agricultural products are largely controlled by about half a dozen large companies. I did know that small farmers are being squeezed out of business and off the land, and that small towns are going with them. I'm also aware of the continuing loss of water and soil, and pollution by herbicides, pesticies, and other agricultural waste caused by short-sighted farming practices.

I don't have answers to all these problems, but they are interconnected, which is why I'm interested in surveys of multiple areas of knowledge, so that problems like these can be fruitfully attacked.

Genius

Years ago, I read a book called, "Surely your Joking, Mr. Feynman", a collection of stories about the prominent physicist Richard P. Feynman, and I very much appreciated his approach to physical and other scientific problems, so I've paid a little attention to works about him and other physicists.
I've been reworking and reorganizing the basics of Physics and Chemistry lately, and I was intending to do more study yesterday, when I ran across a biography of him, entitled, appropriately enough, "Genius". I very much like his freewheeling, unbounded curiosity about physical topics.
While there is something to be said for organization of knowledge, (and I am rigorous about how I organize subjects in my notebooks), in my case too much of it tends to become overly boring and routine. I need room to backtrack and improvise.

I've already laid out the basics of how I'm organizing physics and chemistry, so I'm going to start from there and describe things I am or have been working on. I've been taking another cycle through particle mechanics, and I'm about to start revising my thoughts on particle mechanics systems. I've finally managed to pick up a chemistry book and review the parts that interested me in college chemistry, trying to tie principles of thermodynamics and chemical equilibrium back together. I've also done a sketch of solar system astronomy, which is leading back to geology. In my most recent forays through cataloging chemical substances, water appears near the top of the list, and it's important enough to geology and biology that I'd like to have the numbers at hand for what is called the heat of fusion (associated with freezing and melting), and of vaporization (associated with boiling and condensation, for those unfamiliar with the terms.

Nitrogen

Continuing with the chemistry series:

Nitrogen is fourth on the list of the most abundant chemically active elements in the solar system. Helium and Neon are more abundant, but for all practical purposes, neither of these form compounds. Neon is light enough that most of it has escaped the earth's atmoshere, but significant amounts are found in the sun and the atmospheres of gas giants.
One of the more common forms of nitrogen is the diatomic N2 gas, which is unusually stable, and which combines with other elements only with some difficulty. It's also present, though only to the amount of a few percent, in the atmospheres of Venus and Mars, and it's the predominant gas in the atmosphere of Titan, one of Saturn's moons. I'll discuss the compounds later.

Carbon

I'm continuing with the chemistry series for now.

Carbon is unique among the elements because of its linking ability. No other element has the same ability to form long chains, multiple branches, and linkable rings. Because of this linking ability, it can be found in both compounds and in solid form.
It is fourth on the list of the most abundant elements in the solar system, largely because of the large quantities of methane in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, as well as its presence in the Sun. It's thought to be found in a form like soot in comets and some asteroids.
It's not one of the most abundant elements on earth, very possibly because the lighter carbon-containing compounds were driven away before the earth had formed or while it was forming, but it is quite abundant. Most of earth's supply is found in compounds contained in rock, with a small fraction concentrated as coal. A small fraction of the earth's carbon is found (in combined form) in the atmosphere. However, this small amount is vital to the existence of life, because it is trapped and incorporated into plant life, and then animal life, and re-released into the atmosphere in processes of respiration.

Oxygen

Oxygen is so chemically active that it is seldom found in the atomic form, except where temperatures are so high or ultraviolet radiation so intense that any kind of molecule is regularly disrupted. At earth-normal temperatures, it is normally found in chemical combination with some other elements, but if it is found free, it is usually in molecular form, O2, as a gas.
One of my interests is in science-fictional world building, as a way to apply a few accumulated bits of knowleds, and to give some variety to the way things are.
For astronomical applications, hydrogen is by far the most abundant of the chemical elements, followed by helium. But helium is chemically inert and forms no compounds, at least not at ordinary temperatures. Third on the list in abundance is oxygen.
On the earth, Oxygen is the single most abundant element. Most of it is found in chemical combination with other elements. It is one of the few places where it can be found free in the atmosphere. It poisonous to some forms of bacteria, because of its presence in the atmosphere, environments without free oxygen are rather uncommon on the earth, so the anaerobic bacteria are likewise uncommon. It is continually produced by plants, which are thought to be the ultimate source of it in the atmosphere, and is essential to the respiration of most animals. It is thought that in the earliest stages of the earth's history, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, which would dramatically alter the conditions of life in ways that are difficult to predict.
There are some applications to industrial processes, as oxygen can be separated from the mixtures and compounds that naturally contain it, although purifying it and liquefying it is inconvenient and expensive enough that it's not done unless there is a significant benefit to be gained.

Hydrogen

I've about decided that presenting my outline of knowledge isn't the best way to generate interest in the subject of independent learning, so I'm going to try something else. In my college course in Chemistry back in the 1970s, I was particularly interested in what it said about the relative abundance of the elements in the universe.
I don't have the tools to reconstruct the natural abundance of elements from principles of nuclear physics, as some physicists have done, but I have managed to find a few tables of abundances of the elements in the solar system. I'm not sure which is considered the "best" or most current information; I'm still looking for it.
For a couple of days I've been working on making a list of molecules or compounds that can be made from these elements. There are quite a few that can be made in the low-density, high-energy environments of interstellar space, but I'm more interested in those that survive in an earth-type environment. I'm also interested in those that are chemically active.
Hydrogen has the lightest and simplest atoms, and is the most abundant of the elements. I'm not sure whether most of it is collected in stars or in free space, but there are three important forms of it. At highest temperatures, it is disassociated into its components, protons and electrons, and is found in the form of plasma. At cooler temperatures, and in most of interstellar space, it is found in the form of hydrogen atoms. At earth-type temperatures, it is found in molecular form, H2. At very low (cryogenic) temperatures, it can be liquefied, and solidified. However, such very low temperatures appear to be uncommon in the universe. There may be a metallic form found at extremely high pressures such as in the interior of Jupiter.
Hydrogen is substantially lighter than the other elements of earth's atmosphere and not only tends to float above the other gases, but its molecules can achieve escape velocity in the upper atmosphere. It only exists on earth because it can be chemically bound to other atoms, but that's another story. In order for it to be used as fuel, it has to be first pried out of these other molecules, which presents a considerable practical disadvantage for advocates of a hydrogen economy.

3VL

Nothing new to comment on in most of the logic blogs I've been following, so I'm going to reference the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Many-valued logic.
I may also from time to time discuss other articles.

As I've already noted, the prevailing opinion among logicians is that the development of modal logic on the basis of 3-valued logic never succeeded, but I cannot find where the attempt is documented. I've examined the standard literature on many-valued logic, including the works Ackermann, Bolc and Borowitz, Malinowski, Rescher, and Rosser and Turquettee, and none of them discuss it in any detail. I've also checked the references on modal logic, e.g. Hughes and Cresswell, and they don't discuss it either. There is a proof that the Lewis systems can't be reduced to three values, but then my system isn't exactly one of them, so the conditions of the proof don't apply.
There is some connection between the strict conditional I use and the issues related to relevance logic. Some of the paradoxes of material and strict implication can be addressed.
There is also a connection with paraconsistent logic and issues related to that subject.

3VL - Fuzzy logic and intuitionism

I can also connect this with fuzzy logic. While Fuzzy logic treats individual truth values in the interval between true and false, Three valued logic distinguishes the endpoints True and False, and the entire interval between as the third value F. It thus acts as a bridge between Classical logic and fuzzy logic.

I have also observed connections with intuitionistic, partly as a result of the comparison I did with other 3-valued systems. When I was at the University of Utah, I wrote a paper with my results and tried, (unsuccessfully) to get one of the professors of Logic there to critique it. However, one person there, John Halleck, took a look at it and included a 3-valued logic evaluator on his web site. Borrowing from his list of axioms of Heyting's Intuitionist PC; I have:

HA1: p=>(p&p) True
HA2: (p&q)=>(q&p) True
HA3: (p=>q)=>((p&r)=>(q&r)) True
HA4: ((p=>q)=>(q=>r))=>(p=>r) True
HA5: q=>(p=>q) contingent
HA6: (p&(p=>q))=>q True
HA7: p=>(p+q) True
HA8: (p+q)=>(q+p) True
HA9: ((p=>r)&(q=>r))=>((p+q)=>r) True
HA10: ~p=>(p=>q) contingent
HA11: ((p=>q)&(p=>~q))=>~p contingent

However, if we use ~<> instead of ~, the last two evaluate as true, and in HA5,
if we use instead, []Q => (p => Q), the expression is true.

As with the case with modal logic, a slight adjustment makes this entirely compatible with intuitionistic logic so that they are not identical, but they are quite similar.

3VL - Miscellaneous comments.

I've been following a number of other logic related blogs. Logblog mentioned a conference on exact philosophy. I'm inclined to think it an oxymoron.
On logicandlanguage, there is a reference to Kant's law; that you can't get necessity-style claims from contingent claims. This seems to correspond to my rules that []P => P and P => <>P, but not their converses. With caution, it's possible to interpret ?P as "P is contingent", but it's not possible with only 3 values to distinguish "contingently true" from "contingently false", which points to the need of a 4-valued logic. I've worked out the basic truth tables based on my interpretation of 3-valued logic, but I haven't otherwise done much with it. But it isn't the Lukasiewicz 4-valued logic. I've also been discussing the subject on Mathematics and Computation.

3VL - Modal logic

One of the reasons I liked dealing with logic is that it provides a richer and consistent formal language for discussing the truth values of propositions: certain(true), not necessary, possible, not possible (false), doubtful or equivocal (U), and two-valued or dichotomous.

I had begun with the idea of trying to reproduce a modal logic which would correspond to the similarities, and with the introduction of the strict Lukasiewicz conditional, I could managed to reproduce versions of all the axioms of S5.
Later I found a term, "formal similarity" to describe the relationship, because there are substantial differences between this version and Lewis-type systems.

Lewis used a different notion of possibility than I do. His corresponds to the existence of a possibility, where mine takes it in a somewhat different sense of "not impossible". He associated "possible" with "non-self-contradictory" and would probably not include doubtful or equivocal statements as possible, where I would include them. I believe he would argue that "It is possible that I will eat a turkey on Thanksgiving and it is possible that I will not eat a turkey on Thanksgiving, but it is not possible that I will and won't eat a turkey on thanksgiving." I would inquire about whether he is using "and" in a truth-functional sense or an additive sense and whether a half-eaten turkey would make "will and will not" plausible.

He also bases his logic strictly on two-valued classical logic, and assumes that all its laws hold without restriction (including the law of the excluded middle). I don't; I have to modify some of them to account for the existence and effect of doubtful propositions, which he doesn't acknowledge or account for.

He also used a different notion for his strict conditional. He defines "strictly implies" as "it is necessary that if P then Q", and "it is not possible for P and not Q". While I do find a use for "it is certain that if P then Q", The idea that "it is not possible for P and not Q" is too strict for my purposes. My version is weaker but still adequate.

The effect of these differences is that there is a significant difference in substance between the two systems, but since I can reproduce analogues of all the Lewis axioms as theorems, I can reproduce corresponding analogues of any theorem of S5, and I can decide whether a conjecture is or is not a theorem, and if not, why not, far more easily. "Anything you can do, I can do better?"

3VL versus 2VL

It's also characteristic of this 3VL that it reduces to the two valued case when all the propositions involved are definitely true or false, and the middle value excluded. But a logic that has all the theorems of 2VL, and only those, would be equivalent to it. Not all the theorems of 2VL hold, just as not all the theorems of ordinary arithmetic hold for the integers, and not all those of real numbers apply to the complex numbers. Many theorems of 2VL hold in 3VL as well; typically those involving algebraic-type manipulations of expressions. However, some of them must be modified or restricted; typically those involving rules of inference.

As I've mentioned, direct proof via Modus ponens and transitive chains of inference doesn't work in standard Lukasiewicz logic; These rules need to be restricted to avoid dubious conditionals. Similarly, indirect proofs that rely on some form of "Reductio ad absurdum" also need to be restricted. It is not sufficient to prove P by assuming ~P and then deriving a contradiction Q and ~Q, because this isn't necessarily a contradiction in 3VL. Indirect proof is still possible, but it requires stronger contradictions of the forms "possible and impossible ("<>P & ~<>P) , or "Certainly and not necessarily []P & ~[]P", or even "Certain and impossible" (<>P & ~<>P).
There are also rules that express ideas that aren't available in 2VL. If Certainly P, then P; ([]P => P) and if P then possibly P (P => <>P) are both valid rules but their converses are not>

3VL - doubtful inference

The impression I have gathered is that Lukasiewicz 3-valued logic hasn't had a great deal of respect in the logical community. This is entirely understandable. As it has been presented so far, there are chronic difficulties with interpretation, and you can't do the same kinds of things with it that you can with classical logic. Most of the serious work that has been done with it has been using Lukasiewicz' "Polish notation", which is unfamiliar to most people who work with logic, and in Europe rather than the United States.

But the small step of defining a strict conditional for it makes an incredible difference. It's like giving it the power pill that turns lowly shoeshine boy into Underdog; like turning Bruce Banner into the Incredible Hulk; like turning a lightning bug into lightning; moonlight into sunlight, climbing over a mountain peak and seeing the Pacific Ocean on the other side. The difference in effectiveness is so huge, that it's amazing no one has seen it before. But if it has been seen, I haven't found it in the literature.

It was like a dazzling flash of hindsight. Revelation followed revelation so swiftly, and in such interconnected fashion, that I no longer recall their exact sequence of events. But I can describe some of them.

One of the early ones is that I realized the reason why Lukasiewicz logic hadn't been workable before.
I was already aware that, using the original Lukasiewicz conditional, Modus Ponens fails as a tautology. But it fails in only one case, Namely, when P is doubtful and Q is false. The truth table labels this as doubtful.
But of course!! The Lukasiewicz conditional allows the expression of doubtful conditionals, and if it were true without restriction, it would be possible to start with a doubtful premise and a doubtful conditional, and advance to a false conclusion. But by forbidding dubious conditionals and assuring that it is definitely the case that if P, then Q we repair the deficiency. The original truth table quite correctly labels a case where modus ponens can and should fail.
A few more examples, such as transitivity, yielded similar results, and the basis for a whole theory of doubtful inference falls out, naturally and easily.
Of course this must be so!! One of the purposes of logic, after all, is to assure that our rules of reasoning are correct and that we do not start from true premises and reason to false conclusions. And the strict conditional has just the kind of ordering properties, on three values, that the ordinary material conditional has for two values; when P =>Q is true, The conclusion Q is at least as true as the premises P.

3VL - Success

I need to go back to the Principle of the Excluded middle. I say principle, because it's not a law, here: it's a contingent statement which applies to some propositions but not others. It comes in two forms: bivalence (p v ~p), and noncontradiction ~(P & ~P). In classical logic, these are equivalent. Both of these and their equivalence have been frequently challenged by various logicians or philosophers, but few people take these challenges seriously. In this logic, these two formulations are equivalent, but the necessity of the excluded middle may be either asserted or denied. The assertion, "It is necessarily (certainly) the case that either P or not P", or equivalently "It is not possible for both P and not P)" marks a dichotomously uncertain statement, one which must be either true or false: not neither and not both, although it may not be known which is actually the case. [](P v ~P) = ~<>(P & ~P) = !P. The denial, "it is not necessarily the case that either P or not P", or equivalently "It is possible for both P and not P", marks an equivocally uncertain statement, one with the middle truth value. ~[](P v ~P) = <>(P & ~P) = ?P.
When arguments are symbolized, one finds that that the middle may be consistently be either included or excluded, but the logic strictly enforces consistency once the choice is made. It is obviously inconsistent, and in fact results in a genuine contradiction, to allow the use of the middle truth value on the one hand, and then reassert the excluded middle in one of its forms, on the other. Yet the temptation to do so is both insidious and ubiquitous. More than one of the arguments that have been advanced against three valued logic employ just such an argument.
Perhaps more importantly, when I examined the various versions of 3VL, I found that several of them could be expressed in terms I had defined, which made this a more general system. And then, when I was looking at their connectives searching for such a definition, I noticed a certain definition of equivalence and said, "Hey, wait a minute! That's not an equivalence, that's only a biconditional!" Mathematically, an equivalence relation is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive, and these "logical equivalences" were none of those. It should also express the idea that two formulas should have the same truth value, and they didn't do that, either. Only one of them did (I believe it was Kleene's system, the one that had the conditional I had long ago discarded as inadequate). I had a use for that definition, and so I appropriated it.
At this point, I had a partially functional logic. I could establish commutativity, associativity, and the distributive laws for Conjunction (&) and disjunction (v); I had double negation, De Morgan's laws, and the interconversion of the modal functions, and the law of the contrapositive. I had my two types of uncertainty, and their behavior with respect to the other operators. Now I could add properties of equality (If P=Q, then ~P = ~Q), and properties of equality (If P and P=Q then Q; if P = Q and Q=R then P=R), which was an advance.
It also gave me an intepretation for the Lukasiewicz conditional: I could define it as (~P v Q v P = Q), which was curious, but didn't strike me as particularly useful or profound. And then, after I don't remember how long, I noticed that I didn't need a separate definition for equivalence. I could get it by applying necessity (or certainty) to the Lukasiewicz biconditional I was already using. P = Q = [](P <-> Q)
And then, on the basis that what was good for the biconditional was good for the conditional, I decided to define a strict Lukasiewicz conditional, P => Q as [](P -> Q), removing the uncertainty.
Duh. Of course. Obliviously. And the light came on, and suddenly I understood more than I had ever dreamed of, or anyone will believe.

3VL types of uncertainty

I haven't given up on the other aspects of self-directed education (in case anyone is actually reading this), but in the last few weeks, I've found some logic-oriented blogs on the net. Starting with Logblog I'll start referring to those once I get done with my "confessions" here.
My attitude toward professional logicians is, If you can't join em, fight em. No one competent to understand what I am talking about has shown any interest. So, since I read that one of the components of a successful blog is to be controversial, and since I am clearly suffering delusions of enlightnment, I'm going to turn guerrilla and snipe at the Establishment.

At the point in my studies I had reached, I was not aware that I had almost independently reconstructed the 3-valued logic of Lukasiewicz, and I didn't understand the reasoning or philosophy behind the Lewis systems S1-S5 beyond what I could determine from the axioms.
I ventured onto Compuserve (The internet was just then beginning to grow), and asked there whether anyone had any comment. I was referred to Joe Celko, who was described as working on a 3-valued logic that dealt with missing values in Data bases, who referred me in turn to a discussion going on in the pages of Data Base Programming and Design. I read the articles with great interest, and found myself sympathizing with both sides on the debate. The 3-valued approach the proponents were using was similar to what I was doing, but I agreed that a sound theory was lacking. I didn't have the answers, either, but again, there were unanswered questions.
I went back to school to try to get my BS in Mathematics, and took a course in classical logic. The approach used in that course was natural deduction, and it basically covered propositional logic without going into predicate logic, but I took the opportunity to study that on my own. I took note of the fact that theorems of logic corressponded to truth-functionally true statements (that is, a statement that evaluated as true on every assignment of truth values), their negations were truth-functionally false, and others were contingent, and I wondered whether the middle value I was using could be used to describe these.
I transferred to ASU for a semester, and later lived next to the University for a year, and took the opportunity to examine the literature a little closer. I was dismayed to discover that my discoveries had indeed been anticipated, and I almost gave up. However, there were still unsettled questions. One of the comments I encountered was that "In spite of the promising combination of trivalence and modality, modal logic on this basis was never fully developed." I wanted to know why, and there was no further discussion, no references, no reasons why it didn't work. The other was the objection to interpretation. Lukasiewicz intended his truth value to represent the uncertainty of the future contingent, but an objector (no reference given) pointed to the "law of the excluded middle" and, apparently, there was no answer. When I worked on this, I decided that there were two different kinds of uncertainty involved. Using constants instead of variables or tables !P expresses the idea "True or false, but it's not certain which (!T=T, !U=F, !F=T) while ?P expresses the doubtfulness associated with the middle truth value (?T=F, ?U=T, ?U=T).
It's trivial to show that ~!P = ?P and ~?P = ~P, but !~P=P and ?~P=?P. This meant, to me, that "uncertainty" is an ambiguous concept, with two formally similar but contradictory interpretations. I didn't fully work out the details of how these were associated with the "and" and "or" at this point.
After this, I moved back to Utah, close enough to BYU that I could consult the literature there, and ventured onto the internet, this time at the newsgroup math.logic. One person noted that according to my tables, [](P v Q) = []P v []Q, and <>P & <>Q = <>(P & Q), which aren't accepted in traditional (e.g. Lewis-type) modal logic, while someone else referred me to Bolc & Borowic's work on multi-valued logic. I labored over these for some time, trying to figure how I could get [](P v Q) & ~[]([]P v []Q); and (<>P & <>Q) & ~[](<>(P & Q), but no matter how I transformed and tortured these statements, I got contradictions. Eventually, I decided that they were genuinely contradictions. To simplify the problem, supposing that P and Q are mutually exclusive, so that Q = ~P, and then applying the various transformation rules, these boil down to trying to assert the excluded middle on one side and deny it on the other. No wonder there's a contradiction!

3VL. Not quite.

I recall doing this sometime between 1984 and 1988, after I moved from Utah to Phoenix. When I was working out my version of 3-valued logic, the truth tables for "And" (&) and "or" (v) were satisfactory, but in order to express relationships between propositions, I needed a conditional and biconditional. My first attempt gave (using the constants) T -> T = T; T -> U = U; T -> F = F; U -> T = T; U -> U = U; U -> F = U; F -> T = T; F -> U = T; F -> F = T.
I then began exploring truth tables for the tautologies of classical logic, for instance de Morgan's law ~ (P & Q) <-> ~P v ~Q. I quickly found that there was a gaping hole in every truth table I could construct. For the most familiar logical laws, most entries turned out T, but when P and Q both had values of U, the proposition in question had values of U. This was hardly tolerable. It should be obvious that "if P then P" should be a tautology, but even for something this simple, I got U. At this point, I think I decided to see what else had been done on the subject. I went out to the ASU library to find either Rosser and Turquette's "Many valued logic" or Restall's "Three valued logic" (I'm not sure which), and found that this had been done. It's still not clear to me whether this was Kleene's "weak" system or his "strong" system, but in either case, it didn't work, for the very reason I had already discovered. I found that there was another alternative, Lukasiewicz 3-valued logic, which had the same truth tables I had already worked out, but differed in only one place: U -> U = T (instead of U. I didn't have much time to study it then, but I took this one idea to work with later.
Maybe a year or so later, I saw a friend working on truth tables for a different 3VL, and picked up my own studies again. This time, it occurred to me that I could use a function to distinguish "T or U" from "F", and called this "possible", and one to distinguish "T" from "U or F", and called this one "certain" or "necessary". In combination with negation, one of the first and easiest results were the formulas "Certainly not" = "not possible" and "Not necessarily" = "Possibly not".
When I found this, I considered it too simple and elegant to ignore. Also, using the Lukasiewicz conditional, and biconditional, I could prove a number of significant theorems of elementary propositional logic. However, one of the most important ones, Modus ponens, didn't work. I consulted the source most easily available to me, the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on "History and Kinds of logic", and learned a little bit more about the Lewis systems of modal logic. I particularly noted that there were several varieties, that these systems were not truth functional and could not be expressed with truth tables, but had to be constructed on an axiomatic basis. and that the decision problem (deciding whether a given proposition was or was not a theorem), was particularly difficult. I then tried evaluating a number of the axioms according to the three-valued tables I had developed, and found that some of them worked, and some of them didn't. At this point, I wondered "Why do some of these work, but not others?".

Three valued logic truth tables

I started with the intepretation of my third logical value as "True or false, but it's not certain which". For negation, I could extend the normal table for true or false, and reasoned, The negation of "true or false" would be "false or true": If I don't know whether or not a statement is true, I also don't know whether or not its negation is true. So, if P = U, then ~P = U.

The table for "or", I decided "if P is true, and Q is either true or false, the value of P or Q doesn't depend on the truth of Q", so if P = T and Q = U, P v Q = U, and likewise with P and Q interchanged. U or U should be U, U or F should be U.

Similarly with the table for "and".
Actually, as I found out later, this turns to be an unfortunate interpretation, but the truth tables still work. There is another interpretation that works better, though.

Three valued logic beginnings

I've recently begun following some logic blogs in an attempt to find an outlet for my work in three-valued logic. I've been told that my results are probably not publishable, but I want to discuss them. I mentioned earlier that I don't clearly recall when I became interested in logic, but I can describe some of how I developed this topic.
Between 1981 and 1984, I spent many hours in the mathematics section of the BYU library, and in the process kept my knowledge of logic from dissolving into rust, as well as picked up a smattering of predicate logic. For various reasons, related to the early-20th century "Crisis" in mathematical foundations, I encountered reason to suspect that classical two-valued logic was good for mathematics, but there were doubts that it was sufficient, especially when it dealt with infinite sets. Mathematicians became concerned about the difference between "True" and "provable". I read about various paradoxes in set theory, and did a little bit of playing with them. Russell's paradox attracted my special attention, as did the discussion that even going to a three-valued logic wouldn't necessarily resolve it. I also encountered an article which attempted to analyze Anselm's proof of the existence of God using modal logic, which attracted my attention to that subject.
As I recall now, it was about this time that I started tinkering with what I called a "logic of indecision", using three values. Among my early attempts were truth tables for negation, disjunction (using the OR), and conjuncion (AND), and I used symbols. T, U (or I), and F for the truth values.

Electromagnetism

As part of my discussion on physics, it's useful to go into a little more detail on electromagnetism.

This includes three or four areas, at least from an elementary point of view. These are:

1) Electrostatics. This refers to the behavior of electricity and electric charge and related quantities, at rest.

2) Electric current. This refers to the behavior of electric charge in motion, and includes various kinds of electric circuits. Electrostatics and electric current are often combined under electricity.

3) Magnetism. This refers to magnets, both from magnetic fields and from electric currents.

4) Optics. This refers to light and electromagnetic radiation in general.

These subjects depend heavily on mechanics. Many of the concepts of electromagnetism are most easily introduced from classical mechanics. There is a certain analogy with gravitation, and relativity was developed as an attempt to reconcile certain findings in electromagnetic theory with mechanics. From an advanced point of view, these are closely connected. At small scales, electromagnetism is also closely tied to quantum mechanics as well. The role of thermodynamics is not greatly important except for thermal radiation. There are close connections with the structure of matter.
The other sciences of chemistry, astronomy, earth science, and biology mostly furnish examples of electromagnetism. Biographies of prominent and pioneering scientists, and various associations can be examined. There are numerous textbooks that include discussions of electromagnetism, most of them discussing mathematical relationships. The techniques of working with it vary according to the specific subject. Various instruments are required, since the quantities involved are mostly invisible. Practical application, the importance in various societies, and the history are also useful studies.

I don't have any particular recommendations, for study of this subject until some other time.

Particle mechanics

I mentioned a while ago that I wanted to start discussing some of my thoughts on logic. I'm going to have to hold off on that for a little, while I discuss mechanics and the like.

One of the textbooks I've been looking at lately said something about mechanics being at the foundation of physics. To a large extent, I agree with this. Although by itself, particle mechanics doesn't seem to be a particularly large or useful area of knowledge, it's important to understand it in order to understand many other subjects.

I have divisions of particle mechanics:

1) Description. Many introductions tend to skip over this, but there are significant differences between particles and other extended bodies.

2) Kinematics. This subject includes the description of motion, without regard to its cause.

3) Force and Momentum. This includes Newton's laws of motion

4) Work and energy

5) Systems of particles.

Classical mechanics

I'm trying to tie this more directly into subjects I'm working on. I've done analysis of classical mechanics before, but my notes are buried and left behind in my last move, and it's been a while since I had convenient access to multiple sources. In a typical university library that uses the Library of Congress classification, classical mechanics can be found in several places. There are a few general works on the sciences that mention some basic principles. There are also more specialized texts on physics, and there are also more specialized texts on mechanics, each containing more general ideas. I was trying to reconcile a couple of these, and ran into problems in the order and style of presentation.

In the physics text, the approach started with the description of motion, (kinematics), and then went to Newton's laws, then to rigid bodies, and then other subjects. The mechanics text started with statics and equilibrium of forces, then went to the description of motion. The physical laws are the same with either approach, but I wanted to find one that would unify them. After much head-scratching and rearranging of topics, I decided upon a scheme that worked for me.

1) Particle mechanics deals with the laws of motion as they apply to particles with no (or negligible) parts, rotation or internal motion.
2) Rigid bodies deal with these same laws as applied to bodies that have shape and parts, and adds the topic of rotation.
3) Deformable body mechanics deals with bodies that can be deformed, and includes elastic bodies, fluids, and wave mechanics.

I noticed in one of the science texts a discussion of religion and science, and appreciated the comment that they deal with different approaches. Science deals with the "how" of nature, while religion deals with the "why" and with the building of communities. The text made mention of the fact that certain religious fundamentalists attempt to use scripture to pronounce on questions of science. The comment would have been balanced if it had mentioned that there are zealots of a scientific turn of mind and no appreciation of religion who go the other way and try to use the known laws of science to "disprove" religion.

Astronomy

Most of astronomy does not seem to be as practically useful as other areas of knowledge, but it still belongs. I've been drawn to it because of my interests in science fiction.

I have four major divisions of it:

1) Solar System astronomy. This includes studies of the sun, planets, asteroids, comets, and other things that exist and occur in our solar syste

2) Stellar astronomy. This includes studies of stars and star systems, the life cycles of stars, and the Milky Way Galaxy

3) Galactic astronomy. This includes studies of other galaxies and their composition, classification, and history.

4) Cosmology. This includes theoretical analysis and speculations on the structure, origin, and fate of the universe.

This depends heavily on the various areas of physics, to the point that astrophysics is an important combined field. Mechanics, including not only classical mechanics but gravitation, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all used in astronomy. Electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and the structure of matter are also used heavily.
Chemistry does not seem to be used as heavily, but chemical substances, changes, and systems are discussed in various areas. Areas of earth science are also useful, but there do not seem to be many applications of biology.
The application of other areas, such as psychology, and biography, the role of astronomical societies, language, literature, and philosophy, astronomy as a profession, instrumentation, the role of education and religion, national traditions, and the history of astronomy can be followed following the same patterns as for science in general and the other sciences mentioned.

This is an area in which we are collectively less informed than earlier generations. The majority of people today, particularly in the US, live in cities which are lit at night by electricity, which also lights up the sky to the extent that all but the brightest stars are invisible. Venus is regularly taken for a UFO. If I would suggest anything, it would be to go find a rural area on some clear night, and spend a few hours just looking. For those who are more ambitious and would like to find their way around the heavens, there are numerous guides available.

Mechanics

For some reason, I keep going back to mechanics as a starting point for my various studies. At this point, I am talking about mechanics as a division of physics.

There are several subjects that can be included in mechanics. Originally, this term had to do with machines, as in levers and screws, but with the addition and emphasis of other subjects, the meaning began to change. I recognize four principal areas.

1) Classical mechanics. This includes studies of particles, rigid bodies, and deformable bodies, including gases and fluids. This still is the most common and useful area of study. Before the 20th century, nearly all mechanics was classical mechanics.

2) Gravitation. This is usually included in classical mechanics, but it doesn't neatly fit within another organization of the subject, so I have separated it out.

3) Relativity. This deals with corrections which are needed to classical mechanics in the cases of very high speeds and strong gravitational fields. Since these are outside the realm of everyday experience and require some advanced mathematics to fully comprehend, I will not develop it in great deal.

4) Quantum mechanics. This deals with the corrections that are needed to classical mechanics in the case of atomic-sized and smaller particles. This is more applicable, especially in chemistry, but involves even more advanced mathematics, and I will set aside discussion of this subject as well.

There are some connections to electromagnetism and the structure of matter, and a few connections to thermodynamics, but for the most part, mechanics is considered more fundamental than these other subjects. Chemistry is useful when the particular properties of specific substances are important. Astronomy, earth science, and biology are useful for examples and illustrations. There are comparatively few people who specialize in mechanics as an area of theoretical study. It is somewhat difficult to find internet resources at an intermediate level of study, and this is most easily approached by examining general physics textbooks. It requires a fairly high level of mathematics, and is more closely associated with education than any of the other social institutions. The communities and peoples involved and the history of mechanics are also useful, though it can be difficult to find an introductory account of the history of mechanics.

My interest in the subject is more mathematical and theoretical than experimental, although what resources to suggest depends heavily on how much you already know.

Chemistry

I have a chronic problem with selecting topics to study and develop. If I have a scheme, it becomes too rigid, but if I don't, I get lost among the possibilities. For now, I'm trying a scheme, but if it isn't satisfactory, I'll try something else.

I don't much like the traditional subdivisions of chemistry. It used to be that they were: General chemistry, analytic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and physical chemistry, and were studied in about that order. I've been trying a different approach:

1) Substances. The physical and chemical properties of elements, compounds, and mixtures.

2) Chemical change. Chemical equations and relationships of substances, thermodynamics and energy, rates and mechanisms, and types of change.

3) Chemical systems. One phase, two-phase, and multiphase systems. In this context, a Phase refers to one of the states states of matter: solid, liquid, or gas.

I'm not sure whether this approach really works yet or not; I'm still investigating it.

This depends heavily on physics. Mechanics, especially parts of classical mechanics is often useful. Electricity, magnetism, and optics are also important in chemistry. I've noticed some difference in the chemical approach to thermodynamics and the physical approach. Much of the structure of matter belongs as much to chemistry as to physics. There are various uses for astronomy, earth science, and biology in the study of chemistry. Discussions of the human body and psychology are somewhat useful, and I can sketch out how other areas are related to chemistry by identifying particular chemists. Like other areas of science, chemistry is largely a social endeavor. The chemical literature, mathematics, and measurement; chemistry as an occupation; chemical education; national approaches to chemistry and the history of chemistry are also subjects of interest.

I'm not mentioning any experiments or activities in chemistry: there are others more qualified to do so. What I can do is discuss some of the theoretical aspects of the subject.

Physics

Since I am personally more interested in science than in many other subjects, I'm going to shift to the other end of the subjects from history.

I consider physics to be the study of the laws or regularities of nature in general. As part of my studies in the past, I've devoted some hours to finding a uniform approach to it, and I have several categories:

1) Mechanics. This includes laws of motion, force, and energy. Subtopics include gravitation, relativistic mechanics, and quantum mechanics. The first two are most applicable to other people than scientists.

2) Electromagnetism. This includes electricity, magnetism, and optics, including light. These are less visible, but are regularly employed in our society.

3) Thermodynamics. This includes the study of temperature, heat and related quantities.

4) Structure of matter. This includes the study of subatomic particles, atomic and nuclear physics, molecular physics, and the forms of matter: solids, liquids, and gases, that we usually deal with.

These are fundamenal and more basic than the other sciences, although there is some overlap with chemistry. One of my own projects involves identifying particular prominent physicists, and societies of physicists.
I've recently taken a look at the classification schedules in the Library of Congress to reorganize the subjects of books according to my own preferences, and there is a great deal of popular literature that attempts to discuss very advanced concepts of physics without the use of mathematics. I find this situation very unsatisfactory: I like the mathematics, and there are some areas I would very much like to know about but still lack enough mathematical background. Physics depends heavily on measurement, as well as other areas of applied science. I have something of a distaste for philosophy of physics, although there may be a few useful ideas. One of my pet peeves is the way that physics has become such a specialized occupation and that it requires so much advanced training to even understand the ideas that are being discussed. Physics is generally considered difficult and serious, and there isn't very much that is recreational or fun, although a few creative educators have found some. I don't have any of the apparatus and equipment needed to do research in physics, although some of it is accessible.
I am interested in physics education and improving it, more than in commercial research, and I would prefer that the government not be the primary source of funding. Physics and religion deal with different subjects. To oversimplify, physics concentrates on what can be seen and observed by anyone, while religion deals with what is unseen, at least by most.
Physics is primarily a product of western civilization, but it is hard to get more specific without dealing more with its history. Although it has roots in ancient history, its recognized ancestry comes largely from Greek philosophers in the early classical period, and most of its development since the 16th century.