Carneades.org
A video explaining Saul Kripke’s Modal Logic Semantics, including possible worlds, the accessibility relation, and the valuation operation. It also includes the semantic meaning of each of the axioms of modal logic, how the accessibility relation can be serial, reflexive, transitive, symmetric and Euclidean by using Axioms, K, D, T, 4, and 5.
Sponsors: João Costa Neto, Dakota Jones, Joe Felix, Prince Otchere, Mike Samuel, Daniel Helland, Mohammad Azmi Banibaker, Dennis Sexton, Yu Saburi, Mauricino Andrade, Will Roberts and √2. Thanks for your support!
Donate on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: http://www.zazzle.com/carneades
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene https://twitter.com/CarneadesCyrene .
What do you think of this cosmological argument https://youtu.be/s2ULF5WixMM
Love your channel! Keep making videos
Can someone define the differnt types of logic?
I caught modal, epistemic, temporal, and deontic
Ironically I just got to this section in the book I'm reading. The Philosophers Toolkit.
Is there a site or video that shows what every type of logic is and used for?
Ozzy sent me .
You thought about doing videos on phenomenology and/or hermeneutics and their respective thinkers in the future?
this is a good video but drawing the arrows out of the word "accessible" made the visuals clunky and confusing. i get why you've done it, but it's distracting as hell and there isn't really any need.
Please do not use words to make drawings, it looks very confusing !
Thanks for the video ! 😀
Honestly whenever I search for a subject in YouTube your videos pop up , but they’ve never helped me in anything.. it’s just you speaking too fast and making things harder instead of simplifying it for students
so… if in w1 p is necessary and you then access w2 is it possible that in the transition, p remains true but loses it's trait of being necessary? Can necessity as a property be lost through transitioning to another world?
And if it can do so, is it possible that this could be the case with things like logical truths, speaking on behalf of a skeptic here.
Dont't you need to define the negation operator for the strong operator, such that we have "not necessary"?