Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of PzEph
> Sent: Thursday, 14 December 2000 6:37
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD EITHER/OR, BOTH/AND
>
>
> ELEPHANT TO HORSE (with a p.s. to CHRIS on references):
>
> This discussion about fuzzy logic is turning out more interesting than it
> ought to be. I think I'll pick out just one or two points to
> save time and
> refocus the discussion. I want particulary to think about
> whether adhering
> to classical logic means that you have to have what Horse calls a
> 'black and
> white' veiw of the world.
>
> I don't think so, because classical logic is perfectly consistent with the
> "I don't know" point of veiw, and I have argued that it is in
> fact the only
> logic which can be consistent with the "I don't know" point of veiw, since
> fuzzy logic will take the uncertain either/or question and
> construe it as a
> both/and answer: turning an epistemological state into a logical one.
>
:-) In quantum mechanics there is no such state as 'I dont know'. The system
is based on (a) a particular and (b) a general; a = particle, b=field. The
wave equation is one of probabilities, it is an example of fuzzy logic where
ALL possible states of A+B are mapped.
There are eigenstates which are 'basic' states. Combining them (making
superposition) gives you a description of a system's behaviour. These states
have properties, energy levels, called eigenvalues and the sum of all of
these gives what is called a system's spectrum.
QM is one of the most precise measurement systems around -- to data its
predictions have all been 'spot on'. The structure of QM forbids 'I dont
know', it is a closed system but it is not an EITHER/OR system, it is more
than that in that it maps non-local and local, wave and particle just as our
brain does since the METHODOLOGY is sourced from 'in here'....
Thus your separation of 'classical' from 'fuzzy' is as if separating
classical physics from quantum... they are not EITHER/OR, the recursions
come AFTER the classical.. there is a RE-interpretation not a total
replacement/irradication...
The uncertainty is in the immediate identification of something, one need to
consider context that acts as an influence on the EXPRESSION off something.
Zoom-up to humans and we get the same behaviour in that different contexts
can get one to behave in ways one could not (or could only previously)
imagine..but if one knows all of the POTENTIAL ways then one too can PLAN
AHEAD, be proactive and so 'show' QUALITY in judgements etc.
If BOTH/ANDness = REALITY and QUALITY = PROBABILITIES then it is easy to say
QUALITY = REALITY.
<snip>
>
> Perhaps we may devise a judgement of Solomon that can give free
> range to two
> gigantic egos. (Never let it be said that I was not prepared,
> even anxious,
> to lower myself to your level.) You can send me a complete list of all the
> books and papers I will never read, and, in fair exchange, I can
> send you a
> list of all the books and papers that you will never read. Would
> that be a
> constructive way to proceed?
>
intersting list -- no specific Heidegger or Charle Peirce texts!... both
'classic' 1:many texts with Heidegger's distinctions of das_ein/mits_ein
and Peirce moving into trichotomies and the excluded middle...
My current bedside pile is:
"The I Ching in Tokugawa Thought and Culture" Wai-Ming Ng
"The Limits of Mathematics" G. Chaitin
"The Unknowable" G.Chaitin
"On Godel" Jakko Hintikka
"Ubiquity : the science of history" M. Buchanan
"Scientific Realism" S. Psillos
"On Divination and Synchronicity" Marie-Louise Von Franz
"Nerve Cells and Animal Behaviour (2nd Ed)" Simmons & Young
"Lakatos : an Introduction" Brendan Larvor
"Metaphors we Live By" and "Philosophy in the Flesh" Lakoff and Johnson
"Deviant Logic, Fuzzy Logic" Susan Haak
"Zen and the Brain" Austin
"The Timeless Way of Building" Chris Alexander
"Disseminating Lacan"
"Buddhist Theory of Causation and Einstein's Theory of Relativity" Bharucha
"Using Java Server Pages and Servlets"
+ some new interpretations on the I Ching as well as new translations of
some Daoist texts..
All in various degrees of being read.
also makes a good table for my portable :-) I am a 'dipper' with a motive,
to uncover what is BEHIND all of these expressions... except for the Java --
thats work :-)
In the bookshelves beyond that ... very few novels, stopped reading those
when I found 'fact' more interesting .. of the few present Zen and Lila are
there but then they are not exactly novels... LOTS of computer books, AI
stuff and Neurology/Psychology (I am in the Cognitive Science Society and
subscribe to Trends in Neuroscience and Trends in Cognitive Sciences etc to
keep up to date to some degree) include Jung/Cambell etc - mythology,
anthropology (Batson, Hall etc) .. all get into creation myths...Daoist
texts...more I Ching...
went through a lot of philosophy at an earler age (was doing it at uni prior
to dropping out (70s) but main emphasis was on logic etc Frege et al :-))
you can see how I ended up in the IT industry -- but only after 12 years in
Rock'n'Roll...:-) (the 60s were FUN!.. still having FUN but a bit slower
these days :-))
OK?
(+ 2 computers giving access to all of those virtual bookshelves :-))
I seek solutions to problems -- a rationalist, a science bias. From a
psychological perspective this stems from fear, all science stems from
needing maps to identify and so get around those 'bad' sensations :-)
Your bookshelf looks more like identity seeking, you seek value over
facts? -- or more so a qualitative element rather than the point?
interesting path in that you can never find what you are looking for since
that negates the seeking! Same for problem solving, if you cant find one to
solve -- create one! :-)..hmmm.. suggests we are variations on a theme :-)
identity seekers -- critical, anger. Look BEHIND things. Good
mentors/advocates. can get depressed. Trust others but can often experience
betrayal by others.
solution seekers -- neutral-to-positive. look BEHIND things. Good designers,
inventors, planners etc closer to psychosis (self-containement) than
depression. Do not trust themselves and so make maps.
security seekers -- sad/depressed. Do not trust others. Work on face value
assessments. Managers, providers, protectors.
sensation seekers -- positive. TOTAL trust in themselves. singlemindedness.
Face value assessments -- literal minded.
These 'basic' types are in all of us but we, through recursively applying
the nature/nurture dichotomy usually slot into one of them... and as you
zoom in so four becomes eight ...64... 4096...16million.. sameness to
difference...
Which is closer to Phaedrus...? :-)
best,
Chris.
------------------
Chris Lofting
websites:
http://www.eisa.net.au/~lofting
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:54 BST