Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A Different Duality (unrelated to Descartes)

  1. Nov 24, 2003 #1
    I've never posted on here, or anywhere else for that matter, so bear with me per favore. (Disclaimer)

    I am somewhat discontent with words and our current understanding of how information flows, so I oftentimes use quotes around words because of that unreliability of what is sometimes considered concise lucidity. For this reason, I will refrain from any and all quotes, and state that this entire posting, and any others should I continue, be enveloped in those quotes. Also, I guess because of my transient, short-term memory handicapped nature, continually reiterating my thoughts, all of these statements I would put into the progressive tense, however this would seem awkward, again adding to my discontent with our understanding of efficacious communication. Please keep these points in mind.

    I wish to contrive a system, which I am assuredly not alone, that models life. In attempting such, as many of us are/have been, I have read relatively little in the ways of philosophy, and recently have been reading less and less physics aecause of, the apparent quality of self-reference of foundations of any logical system. Axioms, described by definition as given, have the circularity of 'This statement is true.' Many useful, successful systems are based upon axioms, and although in studying mathematics I have learned of systems that are not based upon axioms, I am thinking that this is just a shift of technical nomenclature, still utilizing something as foundations. These foundations inherently have this circularity (in one context, possibly owing to the nature of definition itself).

    The duality in the Subject Line refers to an inspection of whatever mechanism is behind this self-reference of those foundations, and in a more general sense, of any statement (logical ancestor or descendant regardless). What is this mechanism that allows for temporary belief or disbelief in a statement, including statements that link to others. For instance, say you have a statement, A (without complicating further, yet, our role in observing this statement in a more rigid fashion, I'll leave the member at just one).

    Consider, A is 'A is true.' Here, you may expound this into two branches, that you believe A, or disbelieve it. This may lead to A is true => A is true, or A is false => A is false. So either road you take (if you take either of these), you are internally consistent, and if you kept at it, you would get a self-similar concatenation of such statements. Now consider, A is 'A is false.', such as in an unprovable Gödelian statement. This may now lead to A is false => A is true, or A is true => A is false, depending on the observer's choice, temporary as it may be. So, either road you take this time, you get an apparent self-defeating circularity. (The application of this I may get to here just a little further, although possibly not tonight.)

    So the difference between the two processes seems to be one is self-reinforcing and the other self-defeating. But what is common of the two? Not exclusively speaking, both have an initial statement, subsequent statement(s), an observer, and the observer's choice of belief or disbelief.

    So what?

    What of the possibility of an ecological system of information (although these are technical terms mostly out of place, new terms would be needed) that deals with these statements not in terms of truth or untruth, but of transient existence? I need to split now, but perhaps if there are any replies, I can apply this line of thought towards those replies. If you made it this far, thanks for reading. If not, well ickfayishday (only kidding, if any of you actually decipher that, rationally or not).
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 25, 2003 #2
    one way to deal with the statement "this statement is false" is to say that it's not a well-formed formula and logic can only tell if a well formed formula is true or false. in the language of logic, "this statement is false" is not in the language. actually, it may be the case that "this statement is false" can be translated into a well formed formula but i haven't heard of that. i have seen something like "this statement is unprovable."

    it's not surprising that logic won't be able to decide the truth of all sentences in english: can logic tell you if "phoenix is sexy" is true?

    another option is to expand the set of truth values beyond true and false. if S is a set with at least three members, two of which are identified with true and false, we'd have a rule that a statement expressible in the language has exactly one truth value in S. an odd thing is that it is possible for a statement to have the same truth value of it's negation. it is no longer the case that Aor~A is true for all statements. in this system, "this statement is false" would have some truth value other than true and false without any contradiction.
     
  4. Nov 26, 2003 #3
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    in the language of logic, "this statement is false" is not in the language. actually, it may be the case that "this statement is false" can be translated into a well formed formula but i haven't heard of that.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    I certainly admit I am not trained in formal logic but this is what comes to mind.

    A) The following statement is true.
    B) The preceding statement is false.

    Taken individually, the statements can form properly formed statements that may belong to some system. But taken globally, in the context of the entire system, this may yield its own statement "This statement is false." which would indeed put it in the language of a well formed formula (Although if I ever formed anything well, it's news to me). I think that this is a general description of what Gödel's theorum does to numbers, pointing to seemingly contradicting well-formulated theorums that do exist within the system.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    another option is to expand the set of truth values beyond true and false. if S is a set with at least three members, two of which are identified with true and false, we'd have a rule that a statement expressible in the language has exactly one truth value in S.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    What I think you are saying is that there may be three possible states, exclusive to each other, that cannot be defined by one other - similar to different dimensions of a coordinate system. You can't get any z out of any manipulations with x and/or y. But what I am wanting to do will need to be used with reproduction in a computer, which uses binary states. However, I do like the idea and this is along the lines of what the last paragraph of my first post stated. Not in terms of true and false, but of transience within contexts. I still will have to use a computer though, and thus am constricted to a binary means of representation at some level. The extra members of value will have to come in the information between the 0's and 1's, or truth's and false's.

    The key idea that I am trying to convey is that it is the process of linking the truth's and false's within contexts that can yield a growing conglomeration of a a meta-entity, whose value is neither true nor false.
     
  5. Nov 27, 2003 #4
    I want to make sure I understand you correctly first.

    You wish to create an entity based on ligic in a binary form, who's over all value is neither true nor false. 0-1 relations, all that is not absolute riding on the lines between. So, all aspects of this entity can be seen as a degree of truth or falsity, each premis (if you like) in which this being is created DOES have a t/f relation (of degrees)

    this is the diffrence between what exsists and logic: logic makes a claim on what does exsist: will tell you true false or mu. (or unprovable). If something ACTUALLY EXISTS then it will automatically have a truth-value of 1 for its existence. Something can exist then be false (if you get what I am saying).

    So although every premise within the system, even in a binary system or even a computer program that you want to build using the logic binary code will have a truth value on it, the over all being will always exist if it does, or not exist if it does not. I don’t think you could create a thing that was real that could be neither true nor false... on some level it would be true.

    So it exists or does not exist, it cannot half exist as a being, no matter how many t/f relations with in it.

    So WITHIN the system it may have an average of .5, but as a being it is an absolute.

    Did I understand what you are saying? or have I entirely missed your point?
     
  6. Nov 28, 2003 #5
    I will try to respond, although I am not sure exactly what meaning you are trying to communicate. We are using language, and in most language I see a lot of what I call fluff, or high-level obfuscation. If you have ever tried programming, then hopefully you understand how much information goes into the simplest of definitions, such as in the first use of the word 'create', but I will try my best and am very glad that you have responded to my messages.

    I wish to create something that models what it means, to itself, for something to have a value. The 0's and 1's, which I am thinking you think of in terms of absolute, I do not always consider them to be such. I believe this is aecause I am taking into consideration the observation of these values as well. Call it the humble factor, or the pride factor, whatever nickname comes to mind, but I believe there is an information gap between any relative contexts. What we are calling in this post the observer and the values observed. This may well have something to do with why you are inserting the word 'degrees'. But consider this: you mentioned toward the end of something having an average of '.5'. Would you consider this to be an absolute? Answer it however you like, then try thinking of it in the following terms. You are a context. Whatever you are trying to value is something external to yourself. How much information is put into that value? For how long does that value exist? Is '.5' equivalent to '.50'? How much information are you willing to try to extricate before you give up and decide the holy, and utterably undeniable proof that whatever you are indeed trying to value is '.5'? This is a similar thought along the lines of initial conditions in Chaos Theory/Complexity, although I want something that can decide for itself...this is where the 'ecological' comes from in the last paragraph of the first post. I am thinking that what you and most people consider absolute, within my context, is some sort of stasis of transient entities unable in their present environments to further expand. You get bored. You think it is not necessary. The economics of it - what is it worth to you to go for that 50006 decimal place when three decimals helps you sleep well at night just fine? Hah, actually not sleeping well would probably be a better question.

    As for 1 standing for existing, I am not sure about that. I think it will depend on what context is using the space. But this is probably mostly unanswerable en ce moment.

    For your third large paragraph (and I realize that I type a lot, hopefully this is at least fun for you), a judgement of this alleged entity's existence would still be up to a context's temporary belief - you, the observer, would be able to choose for yourself it exists. This is where an ecological/evolutionary element comes in - if you believe or disbelieve in its existence, will you continue to exist...will you survive. I am pretty sure that you will, either way you choose, and this is how it is for most choices. But I will not curtail my internal logic of the system at the borders of the computer. It applies not only to how its own contexts are valuing external entities, but how you as a context are valuing it.

    I am afraid that I do not understand what you are trying to say with the last couple of sentences, except the last two; but, perhaps the above has helped elucidate some aspects...Gott im Himmel knows that I have typed enough for now anyway. Thanks again for reading.
     
  7. Nov 28, 2003 #6
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    So it exists or does not exist, it cannot half exist as a being, no matter how many t/f relations with in it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    I think I now understand partly what you are trying to say, but if I'm wrong, feel free to smack me. You are saying that the entity will exist or not exist...that no matter if it is made of things that exist and don't, that the entity itself exists, with no degrees to quibble about.

    I think that whatever context wishes to internalize this information (whether this entity exists), does so by arranging other contexts within it, arrangement of information, but these contexts need to be refreshed. They have a limited life span. Truth is not some absolute, atemporal substance, but rather successful reproducers. Whatever question you ask, in this case if the entity exists, you can come up with as many answers as you want, as long as you want to continue to give those answers, they will survive. So I am not saying that it is a half-existence, but rather another form of life competing to survive. This might sound like Memetics, but from what I have studied of the subject, these contexts would not fit into the definition of a meme. Anyway, it's late and this is what I think of in response to your above statement. Please let me know if this at all further clarifies what I am trying to attain.
     
  8. Dec 2, 2003 #7
    Oh good, then it does seem I have understood you, you replied the way I was expecting. You have given me a lot to think about here, now that I have a better idea of this I can think about it more and get back to you tonight. 1-0 relation NOT being absolute makes absolute sense (ok, bad choice of words) all being relative to context and the observational gap coming into account...

    This decimal thing though... (Saying you can go into infinite places if you will, but you get bored and it makes for a sleepless night) are you saying people believe in absolutes because they can’t be bothered to find out to the nth decimal place? Or that there possibly is not end to the decimal places at all, so no measurement is an absolute as it simply goes on into infinitely small regressions? Is 0.5 the same as .50, well no as the added 0 implies that there is more to the number that has been cut. But cut, I would argue, out of practicality, as we simply cannot go to infinite decimal places when the over all predictive ability gained from the information would only be slightly different. It should never be thought that the information or truth is absolute as when dealing with this kind of descriptive paradigm it cannot be. That’s only if you want to use 1-0 relations as a measure of truth though. Yet even if you were using it to demonstrate or mirror simple information (like in computer program writing) it would all still be relative and incomplete for any absolute claim...

    I will re read some of this and write a bit more later. And I agree, it doesn’t have to have anything to do with memes (some people might try to slide them in, but lets not complicate the issue when it need not be.)
     
  9. Dec 2, 2003 #8
    I'm glad that you have read my posts, and although I hope that you intend the meaning of 'understand' to be in the progressive tense. But let's get to the decimal issue:


    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    This decimal thing though... (Saying you can go into infinite places if you will, but you get bored and it makes for a sleepless night)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------


    The sleepless night comment was meant in terms of reproduction, kind of a joke thrown in. If you spent all of your time devoting information to some context that is somehow manifesting a tremendous force within you (NB you are yet another context), then you probably would not be able to devote time to someone of the opposite sex. They would get extremely jealous of this decimal business and get busy with someone else (I am assuming some sort of information link between genes and their products, but the link is still unclear attualmente).


    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    are you saying people believe in absolutes because they can’t be bothered to find out to the nth decimal place? Or that there possibly is not end to the decimal places at all, so no measurement is an absolute as it simply goes on into infinitely small regressions?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------


    I'm glad that you chose the word 'believe', for it is very relavent to my response. It seems to me that you are still trying to ascribe truth in some absolute form to these questions that you are asking, and part of what I am trying to say may become clear with the following analysis of those questions (This is the application that I mentioned at the end of the first post.):

    A: There is possibly no end of decimal places at all. > Believe or Disbelieve.

    If the observer believes this or does not, even transiently (NB the apparent relationship to suggestions in psychology, like say pink elephant to someone then have them try not to think of it), then each subsequent stimulus (food for thoughts) will lengthen its lifespan. Thus, I am not focusing on its so-called truth, but the ability for either response to reproduce and grow. I am saying that either and/or both answers have the possibility to grow. Obviously, there is much success with Mathematics and those who believe in it as some kind of pure art form, and they fully utilize their different categories of natural, real, rational, irrational, complex numbers to a tremendous extent. But when applying to the real world, things get tricky, as can be seen with fractals and complexity. They call this sensitivity 'initial conditions', and only the slightest change in them can have catastrophic effects on the later course of recursive processes.

    So, believe or disbelieve may be misleading words to use in this light, although I am purposefully using them in this example. If you want, you can consider them in terms of suppositions, and ask how are those suppositions applicable towards different lines of inquiry. What people call truth for now, is in a different context (I could say 'more accurately described' if I were not delved in this context myself) a supposition that has yet to be improved upon, changed, or altogether routed by following suppositions. Consider Newtonian Mechanics to Einsteinian Relativity (I use this because these are the two that I am most familiar with, but the example extends to other developments as well, e.g. Survival of the Species vs. Survival of the Gene, etc). The truths, and do not doubt that the many of the intellectuals of Newton's time thought of it in terms of truth, were supposed truths. They were extremely practical and led to great expansion of engineering, mathematics and so on, but they were not absolute. Very important also, is the fact that we can get along very easily still reverting back to his ideas, because of their efficiency. Possibly, further physics will become more widely known and will be as efficient, but for right now we still use his physics and so those physics survive, those supposed truths of the past that are now only 'limited modeling systems' - yet many still cling to the proud stance of 'We got it right this time.'


    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Is 0.5 the same as .50, well no as the added 0 implies that there is more to the number that has been cut. But cut, I would argue, out of practicality, as we simply cannot go to infinite decimal places when the over all predictive ability gained from the information would only be slightly different. It should never be thought that the information or truth is absolute as when dealing with this kind of descriptive paradigm it cannot be. That’s only if you want to use 1-0 relations as a measure of truth though. Yet even if you were using it to demonstrate or mirror simple information (like in computer program writing) it would all still be relative and incomplete for any absolute claim...
    ----------------------------------------------------------------


    The use of the word 'cut' here implies something that I think may be misleading. It is as if there is some whole from which a piece is 'cut out', although I may be misinterpreting you. I would rather liken it to an avenue having its financing 'cut out' from it, as opposed to the actual street being chunked away. This has to do with positive and negative space, a concept I am really thinking hard on recently but do not have it well-shaped as of yet.

    So, all of this is what leads to transient existence of truths, and the inextricable link between time and seemingly atemporal intellectual constructs. I have my ideas related to this of what 'time' actually is (of course relative to my context), but this is not the time to expound on that. Also, all of this is not just some philosophical discourse - I actually do want to build something for lack of better words that will utilize this view of logic. This should be enough for this post though (probably more than enough!). And again, I am glad of your interest in the posts and thank you for it.
     
  10. Dec 2, 2003 #9
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    I'm glad that you have read my posts, and although I hope that you intend the meaning of 'understand' to be in the progressive tense. But let's get to the decimal issue:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------


    Yes, that what I meant, I am sorry; I will be more specific in the future (language and definitions, you can go on forever)


    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    If you spent all of your time devoting information to some context that is somehow manifesting a tremendous force within you (NB you are yet another context), then you probably would not be able to devote time to someone of the opposite sex. They would get extremely jealous of this decimal business and get busy with someone else
    ------------------------------------------------------------------


    LOL

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    I'm glad that you chose the word 'believe', for it is very relevant to my response. It seems to me that you are still trying to ascribe truth in some absolute form to these questions that you are asking, and part of what I am trying to say may become clear with the following analysis of those questions (This is the application that I mentioned at the end of the first post.):
    ------------------------------------------------------------------


    No, I think understand: 'truth' is just a matter of expanding life span in different contexts, and there fore nothing can be completely absolute as though it may hold one value in one context it will hold a different one in another. That does not make it true or untrue compared to context, simply developed or undeveloped as it were. (this is what I have taken this to mean) my question of absolutes was more of a speculative question: do you think that in one context there is only so far a particular notion can go in complexity? and if so, could that be the "absolute" truth for that notion within that context? and if there is only so complex a notion can get within one context, then the absolute notion may still stand: it would be meaningless, but might explain why people believe in them.



    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Possibly, further physics will become more widely known and will be as efficient, but for right now we still use his physics and so those physics survive, those supposed truths of the past that are now only 'limited modeling systems' - yet many still cling to the proud stance of 'We got it right this time.'
    ------------------------------------------------------------------


    absolutely. I come across this problem a lot, with people not believing in the expansion of what they hold to be truths, especially when it comes to physics. I like this fluid approach much better.



    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would rather liken it to an avenue having its financing 'cut out' from it, as opposed to the actual street being chunked away.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    that makes a lot of sense, I had not thought of it in those terms... I was simply implying that the numbers below the 'cut off' point were not taken into account or used to make the predictive action - they still exist, just are not used. I’m not sure if that makes any sense or not.



    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    So, all of this is what leads to transient existence of truths, and the inextricable link between time and seemingly atemporal intellectual constructs. I have my ideas related to this of what 'time' actually is (of course relative to my context), but this is not the time to expound on that. Also, all of this is not just some philosophical discourse - I actually do want to build something for lack of better words that will utilize this view of logic. This should be enough for this post though (probably more than enough!). And again, I am glad of your interest in the posts and thank you for it.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    I want to talk more about this intelligence you want to build. If you can utilize this kind of logic with in a computer program, then it would probably be the closest thing I could think of that would even resemble an actual intelligent being. Are you writing this logic out as a code or a computer program? How would you go about testing it? How far have you worked this logic out? (or are you still in the 'will this be possible' testing phase?) If you could implement this kind of logic, it would certainly resemble intelligence, but are you aiming for a human intelligence or just an intelligence in general? (and what would you see as being the difference?)

    Sorry for the influx of questioning, but my area is AI and this kind of mind philosophy, I haven’t had much faith in the AI project for a while due to Syntax/semantics problems, but I think something like this could have a chance of getting around all of that. I haven’t really heard of this kind of thing, I have a bit of complexity theory, but that was going to be my summer reading, and I have little experience in mathematics, so all of this is incredibly intriguing to me.
     
  11. Dec 9, 2003 #10
    Wow. Great thread.

    Infomeantion

    I think you are talking about the epistemilogical aspect of the 'middle way' of Buddhism. Here's a brilliant essay which might make sense to you or not, but which is talking specifically about the resolution of truth and falsity in non-dual thought. Don't be put off by the 'spiritual' flavour of the opening. (If you haven't gone into this kind of stuff before don't be surprised if it's double dutch - it's definitely not an introduction to the subject).

    http://sino-sv3.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/FULLTEXT/JR-JOCP/edward.htm

    This view is based on inner experience to a large extent, but it is quite logical. It is really just a different exposition of what Zeno, Kant, Goedel, Popper, Spinoza, Quine (among hundereds of others) have said in more Westernised terms. The polarities of truth and falsity created within axiomatic systems systems of thinking (or conceiving, perceiving etc) must be seen through in order to grasp reality.

    Sounds mystical but it's a strictly rational view, just (ex hypothesis) very difficult to discuss.
     
  12. Dec 10, 2003 #11
    Canute:

    I did read a large portion of the link you gave, and I thank you for your interest and enthusiasm of the posts here. Do you have any thoughts on specifics in the posts?

    Darkwing:

    I already replied once...but Physics Forum had timed out on me and I lost the whole thing. I usually back it up to notepad, but I didn't to that one. I will respond again in the near future, hopefully.
     
  13. Dec 12, 2003 #12
    Do I just! I think your first post was very interesting. I took it to mean that you consider language to be inevitably dual, and that therefore the truth and falsity of assertions made using it are relative. From this conclusion you've decided to create a 'non-binary' (non-dual) language.

    The language of non-dual philosophy (Buddhism, Advaita, Taoism etc) is precisely this. There is no change in the words exactly, or the grammar, but its writers are always at great pains to completely disagree with themselves as soon as they assert anything important about reality. You've hit on the reason.

    The reference I gave discusses this aspect of the writings of Lao-Tsu and Chuang-Tsu, but it's true of all non-dual writings. It is undoubtedly the hardest thing to understand about such writings, for it appears to be deliberately confusing. It results in some people accusing Buddhists of being deliberately obscure so as to avoid rational criticism. In fact they're just trying to be truthful using a language that insists that ones views must be polarised in such a way that every truth is partly false. This is because the words have a false assumption behind them, namely that all statement must be either true or false. In this sense the truth is said to be beyond language, since language restricts our ability to be rational.

    If you read through some of the literature you'll see the great lengths writers go to in order to avoid this pitfall. Unfortunately, for people who haven't grasped why this is so, those writings often appear meaningless or mystical.

    To a non-dual thinker every deep question about reality is as difficult to answer as 'have you stopped beating your wife?'. The assumpions in the question make it unanswerable. This is partly why novices who ask damn silly questions get hit with sticks. It's to remind them that it waste's everyone's time to ask them. The word 'mu' is often given as an amswer to avoid having to get involved in the muddle.

    The other reason is that in Avaita etc. the ultimate reality, or ground of being (or Brahman, emptiness etc) is such that nothing true or false can be asserted about it. This is the ontological issue from which the epistemilogical problem arises. It relates to Spinoza'e notion of a God with no affirmable attributes.

    In more Western terms the whole problem relates very closely to Goedel's theorems, Russell's paradox, Zeno's problem with motion and so on. The problem is circularity and self-reference. In a way one could say that the reason Goedel's theorems are true is that the Buddhist metaphysic is true, but that's a bi---g topic.

    I hope that makes some sort of sense. It's my take on the issues.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2003
  14. Dec 13, 2003 #13
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    That does not make it true or untrue compared to context, simply
    developed or undeveloped as it were. (this is what I have taken
    this to mean)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------


    This quote is along the lines of how I see things. However, if you
    do start to see things this way, you might reconsider using the
    word 'just' up there (I did not quote the 'just' sentence), before
    this quote.



    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    do you think that in one context there is only so far a particular notion can go in complexity? and if so, could that be the "absolute" truth for that notion within that context? and if there is only so complex a notion can get within one context, then the absolute notion may still stand: it would be meaningless, but might explain why people believe in them.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------


    There is or isn't so far a particular notion can go in complexity. Within a context that is assuming there are absolutes, then to within that context there are. The same circular type of statement can be said of no absolutes, as well as combinations and exceptions and so forth. Within my context, it is more important of how this can be modeled; how what you mention in the last sentence - belief - can be modeled. This relates to what I mentioned in the first post on the effect of beliefs in axioms. I am not sure how to model it, but it seems that there is some stifling aspect of self-defeating circularity within an information-organizing system. By stifling, I mean that there seem to be limited, finite resources available to an ecological system, and self-defeating circularity in most cases stifles growth of the indigenous entities. This could be how truth is defined within a context. It is not that the belief is true or untrue intrinsically, but rather not well selected for in its present environment.



    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    absolutely. I come across this problem a lot, with people not believing in the expansion of what they hold to be truths, especially when it comes to physics. I like this fluid approach much better.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------


    First, I think it's funny that you say absolutely at the beginning, given the content of these posts. Second, I see those people that you are describing, but also there are indeed others who adhere to the principle that they are working with theories that are volatile. It is difficult sometimes, however, to pronounce that belief of transience-in-belief in a world that acts in terms of absolute beliefs. I want to give them a more powerful tool to reinforce the transient aspect of belief.



    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    that makes a lot of sense, I had not thought of it in those terms... I was simply implying that the numbers below the 'cut off' point were not taken into account or used to make the predictive action - they still exist, just are not used. I’m not sure if that makes any sense or not.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------


    This goes along the lines of the previous paragraph regarding absolutes. There can be two branches, within a context, that profess the existence and non-existence of the numbers below the cut-off. Which one will be true will be determined by the transient enviromental conditions within the context. Suppose those conditions favor the existence branch. This would mean that there are resources that the branch is continuing to be able to acquire, and it is acquiring them. In the case of this model, I think those resources are going to be information - 1's and 0's - and somehow those resource acquisitions are dynamically affecting the branch's ability to acquire more. Again, I think of self-defeating and self-reinforcing recursion. Somehow, the self-defeating hypocritical beliefs (A => Not A) continue to exist, just not able to grow as well as the self-reinforcing ones.



    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    I want to talk more about this intelligence you want to build. If you can utilize this kind of logic with in a computer program, then it would probably be the closest thing I could think of that would even resemble an actual intelligent being.

    [And]

    If you could implement this kind of logic, it would certainly resemble intelligence, but are you aiming for a human intelligence or just an intelligence in general? (and what would you see as being the difference?)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------


    As far as resembling an intelligent being, if what I am trying to do is correct (i.e. powerful enough to reproduce and continue to reproduce within our enviroment), then it will help define what intelligence is. Right now, I think you would consider it, if it were to happen, as a creation of mine or even a creation of ours. I do not think precisely in this way. I could claim that it has existed always, as we have. I could also claim that it hasn't existed until I created it. Or, I could claim that it was born at 3 P.M. on November 14th, 1623. Part of what this would teach, if it is successful, is that these are all correct and incorrect to whatever degree (even the degree would be correct and incorrect to a degree). So, if you would want to call it resembling something, then I'm sure some others would agree, but others wouldn't. That's part of the fun.



    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Are you writing this logic out as a code or a computer program? How would you go about testing it? How far have you worked this logic out? (or are you still in the 'will this be possible' testing phase?)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------


    I have written no computer code as of yet. I haven't been able to define things well enough. This way of thinking has become a large enough part of me that I am past the 'will this be possible' phase, and I am into the 'will this happen' phase, so to speak. I have recently been working out a model that is at least mechanizations that hopefully properly reflect some of what I've been trying to communicate. As far as testing it goes, I'd rather not say at the moment.



    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Sorry for the influx of questioning, but my area is AI and this kind of mind philosophy, I haven’t had much faith in the AI project for a while due to Syntax/semantics problems, but I think something like this could have a chance of getting around all of that. I haven’t really heard of this kind of thing, I have a bit of complexity theory, but that was going to be my summer reading, and I have little experience in mathematics, so all of this is incredibly intriguing to me.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------


    Questions are partly what I am seeking here on this forum and so are welcome. As far as AI goes, I have no formal training on the subject, but have read some. As I said in the first post, I have a hard time dealing with subjects whose axioms I cannot accept, and this applies to what I have read on AI. I can say that those syntax problems that you speak of may be your problems and not AI's. However, semantic problems are precisely what I expect from a system without Correct axioms, so I would most likely be, and probably am, in the same boat with you. I hope that our intrigue will be productive and un-futile. As far as reading goes, chaos and complexity are areas which I superficially study on my own, as well as cellular automata, information theory, memetics, quantum mechanics, relativity, and string theory. All are extremely extensive, as well as extremely successful and useful. But I personally feel that the current field of 'reasoning' is lacking, and that it pertains to all of those fields. But my personal feeling is currently relatively powerless and less pervasive. I intend to rectify that.

    Canute: I will respond to your post soon.

    As ever, I thank anyone for interest and intrigue enough to read these posts.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: A Different Duality (unrelated to Descartes)
  1. K-pax and Descartes (Replies: 0)

  2. Spinoza and Duality (Replies: 1)

Loading...