Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:23:12 +0100
Hi! Gene and TLS,
Gene Kofman wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
> > My point to Pirsig and to my fellow TLS mates (this paradox is not
> new,
> > I did not originate it, countless others have used this example -
> except
> > I have not seen anyone else solve it the way I am about to show you
> - if
> > you know of another person who has already done this, please share)
> is
> > that MoQ and QM and the concept of many truths eliminates the
> paradox.
>
> There is something similar in fuzzy logic where each truth is true to
> some
> degree. Most useless ones are 100% true (when it's raining water comes
> down
> from the skyes), but really interesting truths always depend on the
> context
> (to borrow Doug's terminology). Fuzzy logic theory is very well
> developed
> (Lofti Zadeh, Bart Kosko) and it is conducive to silicon
> implementation.
> Expert systems we program now are based on fuzzy logic as opposed to
> the IF
> .. THEN ... ELSE rule trees.
>
> Gene.
>
Gene,
I made an inference from what you said above: formal logic is a SPoV
invention of the SOM-types. Do you agree?
I also infer that fuzzy logic is more MoQ-like. Is that what you are
hinting?
If so, then could we use a kind of fuzzy representation of the four
levels and their contexts, relationships, etc.?
As I understand it, fuzzy logic is still not continuous, it has
multiple, settable discrete levels instead of the formal dichotomies and
trichotomies, right?
Thanks for the input, Gene.
Mtty,
Doug.
> --
> post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:05 CEST