ELEPHANT TO CHRIS:
Hello. This is the new me. I've been to socialisation classes and even
slept a bit, so you will be amazed at the transformation. I'm pleased to
find you taking note of what I post and making some interesting comments.
One or two are besides the point, however, so we'll come to them
first.
ELEPHANT HAD WRITTEN:
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.
CHRIS WROTE:
:-) In quantum mechanics there is no such state as 'I dont know'.
ELEPHANT:
Is that so? Pray, do continue.
CHRIS WROTE:
QM is one of the most precise measurement systems around -- to date its
predictions have all been 'spot on'. The structure of QM forbids 'I dont
know', it is a closed system...
ELEPHANT:
Ah, if I might interject at the point? Might I? Good. Precision has
absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of the state of
'I don't know'. Cf: Heisenberg.
Further to that, it seems you've missed a rather more basic point I was
making. Presumably when the scientists are setting up their instruments to
make observations they are in the state of "I don't know" that I was talking
about? Yes? That being the reason for scientific enquiry in the first
place? Yes? Good. Glad you agree.
CHRIS:
[QM].... 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'....
ELEPHANT:
One on the things which makes QM so attractive to some people as a way of
discussing philosophical problems is also the very same thing that makes it
such a profoundly an unattractive method of Philosophy for other people:
viz, that nobody actually understands Quantum Mechanics. Richard E Feynman
didn't understand QM, fo for God's sake. Feynman argued that there is
absolutely no way to construct an imaginable picture of what goes on at that
level of 'matter', and that sensible people should just stop trying, and
trust the maths. The maths is what QM actually consists of, not your
"sourced from 'in here'" methodology. Now that maths produces mathematical
decriptions in the form of probabilities. You seem to be saying that,
simply because it is probablistic in its conclusions, Quantum Mechanics must
be non-classical in it's reasonings. Now this, I confess, I simply do not
understand. You may have some argument or explanation to enlighten me here,
but I haven't heard it. I seem to recall some classes I took in
mathematics. I don't recall being introduced to fuzzy logic in order to be
able to calculate probabilty. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.
Or perhaps, all you mean by "fuzzy logic" is an acknowledgement that some
things are just probable? Is that all you meant? Because if it is, I've
news for you: you aren't the first to notice this, and most of the people
who have noticed this in the past have done so quite succesfully within the
framework of classical logic.
CHRIS WROTE RE READING LIST:
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..
ELEPHANT:
I think you make the mistake of beleiving that I own and have listed every
book and paper I've ever read. (Is this an invitation to a complete
curriculum vitae?). Libraries serve a useful function. I've worked on
Peirce as part of my first degree, and can gleefully inform you that his
thirdness has absolutely nothing to do with a third value in logic - which
rather suggests that you are the one who hasn't read him. He worked on the
logic of triadic relations, which might have been the bit you overheard. A
logic of triadic relations and a three value logic are not the same thing.
This is the ordinary distinction between what something is about and what it
is. The Thayer collection I own would be a good place to start, Chris, and
I recommend you start soon. On dasein and mitsein... No, I've never read
any Heidegger. Perhaps you will now become an expert on him.
Re. the I Ching you are reading. One up on me. Recommend you check out the
lyrics to Pulp's 'Glory Days' on the album 'Hardcore':
"& I used to do the I Ching
but then I
had to feed the meter.
Now I can't see into the future
but aleast I Can use the heater."
Re. the AI stuff - I suppose you have heard of Steve Grand (cyberlife)?
He and I have had one or two published disagreements, and we're in an email
correspondance just now that is proving enlightening (maybe that current
exchange will see the light of day, maybe not - things got interesting when
I got him to drop the standard "you are a cartesian!" accusation). I can
give you a website address for the published stuff if you are interested.
Re. Frege. Never hated reading anthing so much in my life. The trouble
with Frege, like a lot of Philosophers, is that the really important move is
made at the start, and everything after that is pointless if you didn't
agree at the kick-off. In his case it all starts from the claim "there are
informative identity statements". I happen to think this is wrong, because
synthetic judgements are constructive rather than informative. The
explanation for this glib remark is about 40000 words so we shouldn't dwell
on it too much.
I've aquired some virtual bookshelves too - surprising what you can find on
the net if you try, and I'm a fashion-victim with a new ibook that really
does what it says on the tin.
CHRIS WROTE:
Your bookshelf looks more like identity seeking, you seek value over
facts?
ELEPHANT:
Suspicious of an insult in the first clause, but re second: you got it, I
think that's why I fetched up at moq.org ...
And excuse me if I don't select a personality type.
All the best,
Pzeph
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