Glad you found the Whittaker papers useful.

  For the 1903 paper, combine also my own paper "Giant Negentropy of the Common Dipole".  Also combine Mandl and Shaw, Quantum Field Theory, Wiley, 1984, Chap. 5.  Realize that presently our "EM fields" and "potentials" are "defined" after the causal field (in 4-space, prior to interaction) has interacted with that crazy, assumed unit point charge.  In short, what is diverged from the fields and potentials, in a "frozen 3-space snapshot called observation), is erroneously defined as the "field" or the "potential" before the interaction!  So there is mass confusion in electrodynamics, caused by ubiquitous substitution of the effect for its own cause, a total non sequitur.

  And yes, I'm familiar with those works on logic and semantics, and also read them many years ago.   Non-Aristotelian logic is necessary, particularly whenever one ponders foundations.  The only problem you have to watch out for, was that the logicians apparently never realized the difference between "thoughting" and "existence without and before all time-differentiating operation".  Consequently, bluntly they never sorted out their own stuff very well, could not solve the fundamental problems they were working on, and so divided into "schools" and "positions" noted for the very smooth way of stating their view or position or "solution".

  They never solved such problems as "nature of nothing, nature of one, nature of mind, nature of being," etc.

  The other thing is to be keenly aware that everything we state, profess, or advance comes from a "model".  No model has anything to do with "ultimate truth" (see Gödel's theorem).  It is absolutely useless to "debate models" with those who so solidly attach to one particular model that they become dogmatic at best, and fanatical at worst.  Unfortunately, those very fellows come at anyone working in foundations.  My fundamental approach there is that, if they wish to engage in cur dog fights, go find some curs to fight with.

  A model ultimately is judged not by "ultimate truth", but by its suitability for use in predicting phenomena, engineering things for a technology, etc.  In physics, e.g., there are many conflicting models.  For the photon, there are at least four major models -- all which are in disagreement with each other -- yet each very useful in its own area where it applies.  So physicists just use whichever model has been found to "fit" in a given case, and for another different case, he just changes to the appropriate model.

  Anyway, best wishes and good luck in your own research.

  Tom Bearden

---