brian carroll on Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:47:23 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> subjective math. |
Michael H Goldhaber wrote:
How does your approach relate to or differ from Lotfi Zadeh's "fuzzy logic?"
Hello Michael, thanks for your interesting question. I had not heard of Lotfi Zadeh because my path into logic was through individual explorations with the alphabet as a phase-changing system, experimenting with letters and numbers, their reflections and rotations of shared structure. This was verified by a university math teacher to be a form of calculus, who recommended a course on 'probability' which closely relates set theory and venn diagrams in what may be considered a 'weighted analysis' of sorts. This is the form of mathematics that should be taught in early and all education because it is of practical value for basic reasoning, in terms of its allowing for robust evaluation and understanding of involved ramifications. It allows someone to reason something is 'probable' in a way that tends towards absolute truth in reasoning, and this is different than saying it is likely or possible. So there is deep empirical grounding it can reference if ideas are mediated in terms of their truth and logic. Going into this course I think the concept was already existent of 'superposition' in terms of the alphanumeric sign (HIOX) which is replicated in a 16-segment LED display, essentially a union jack symbol that generates all western letters and numbers. Further, for numbers, the 7-segment display, an LED component used in electric clock radios and equipment for readout, is a simpler example of the superposition concept... (note: I did not know the physics word 'superposition' yet had some sense of the concept because of this...) The 7-segment LED looks like a letter '8' that is more rectilinear and box-like. Within this symbol, all of the numbers - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 - can be regenerated. So in a sense they are suspended within this '8' that is not actually an '8' when it is not lit-up, only outline or matrix for a potential 8 or 1 or 3, etc. So there is a potential number, 0 through 9, that can be displayed. Also hexadecimal letters (A B C D E F) can generate from the symbol, so there is an alphanumeric aspect. In this way, without calling it 'superposition' this same "potentiality" was noticed in these cultural symbols, the 16-segment or HIOX symbol (which is called that because it equates to the overlaying of those letters) often is seen in building details from ancient times, yet also in federal buildings worldwide, in addition to use in electronics as alphanumeric display components. For the 16-segment, the entire alphabet and number system can be recreated from a single symbol, so in this way its potentiality is 26 letters and 10 numbers though it can go beyond that given extended signs. Investigating the structural relations between letters and numbers, especially after reading The Republic by Plato where this activity was directly referenced, became a major question and cultural enigma: why is this not being discussed, why is there no record of such an amazing ordering device, if not 'parti' (which a professor described as being 'organizational logic'). Especially its code-like or mastercode-like attributes in civilization. Plato had described part of it in Meno yet only a part of the symbol related to its geometry. I did not know what to call any of this until taking the course in probabilities and then it became possible to begin conceptualizing the condition it exists within in terms of exponential counting, or relationships, if it can accurately be described this way. The enigma of superposition can be presented as a riddle and this is easily demonstrated by these generative symbols. For example, a 7-segment display could be used to animate a sequence of the letter E and number 3 in a spinning condition, around a central axis, which then would appear as a number '8' (if not letter B) on the electronic display or even via a physical motor with a single alphanumeric shape, a number 3 on oneside and a letter E on the other, set spinning. If observing this spinning shape, knowing it may be either a letter E or number 3, yet because of its motion it is indistinguishable and merged into one entity, essentially -both- letter -and- number, then its potentiality may be hard to determine precisely at a given observation, is it a number 3 or letter E? What if it is somewhere between, what does that mean - in that a gradient could potentially exist. This is essentially the limit of binary reasoning, a boundary condition for observation. Depending on how fast it is spinning, the blurring that occurs could either constitute its own entity, such that it is only possible to see in terms of its being '8', which is outside the question (3|E), because it is precisely not just one or the other choice. So the transformative condition in which the objects exist cannot be evaluated in the binary terms, as if they are still simply distinguishable as a 3 or E. Or if the spinning is slowed down, depending on if an electronic display or physical model, it may be possible to say, that it is a letter at one moment in its rotation, or that it is identifiably number. Though this situation can vary in the extremes given how it is set up as an experiment to evaluate observation. If the 7-segment simply blinked an 'E' or a '3' it would be possible to determine in binary [yes/no] terms if it was either this or that, if the 7-segment display was switching back and forth slowly enough. Yet at some threshold it becomes blurred, imperceptible in that a distinct number or letter are lost to their fusion. With an analog model, with a motor rotating a vertical axis with a sign that is 'E' on one-side and '3' on the other, speeding this up into a blur, then a fusing of these two into one. If very fast it would be difficult if not impossible to distinguish which is which in the given naked eye observation. It could be both 'E' and '3' at the same time because it is moving so quickly. If this physical model was slowed down, an observer positioned at some location around its 360 degree rotation could potentially in standing still watch as as the number 3 becomes the letter E, going from an exact reference, where 3=3 or E=E, momentarily, to a partial match, where it is mostly 3 or mostly E, and in this way as the analog shape (a cutout form that is spinning on its axis, with a letter on oneside, number on the other, if not each side a different color) turns, it then is in a middle-state, or 3-value condition, that is somewhere inbetween an exact binary category. In that a flattened shape exists as it moves towards the central axis, like a capital 'i' or 1, given its depth. 3 ==> | ==> E ==> | ==> 3 (example of 2D/3D shape spinning on vertical axis) Another way to convey this is that as the shape turns its horizontal 'arms' become shortened, thus warped and the shape itself warps until it is flattened out as it spins on axis. So there is shortening of these arms as the 3 turns sideways, where it appears only as: | and likewise with the E as it turns and flattens out. This is equivalent to opening up a graphics editor, typing out a letter or number in a font, and then choosing to modify its width, from 100% to say 50%, then 30%, then 1% at which point it is: | And what this is to question is at what point does the E stop being an E as an exact match: E = E. And likewise for the number three. At what point is it only a partial-E, not an exact match to what is known to exist (the shape seen directly) versus at an oblique angle while it is moving and changing. And thus is a 99% E still an E or is it crossing some boundary condition, where it is largely the same yet taking on more and more paradoxical qualities as it moves into a less clearly distinguishable realm. And so how is it determined when it stops being what it is based on observational conditions, how it is viewed. I did not have an answer to this, it was a question that for me was quintessentially of paradox. And yet knew of this potentiality of these symbols. That their basic character involved this dimensionality and yet there were no words that could describe it, only later was the concept of superposition heard of. The thing that opened my mind during the probability course was the classic coin toss example. Oddly, this was contemplated before mentioned in this thread yet also is prescient because like a random-event-generator pulling 'forms' out of the noise of the shared atmosphere, there is some potentiality to thinking as it exists in the world especially in overlapping realms of empirical reasoning, intuition, psychological if not psychic, that directly relates to the issues of probability in its statistical grounding of information as pattern. And so there are some wonderful 'coincidences' in the parallelism of shared consideration and it seems this could be implicit yet often in the unsaid, that such modeling exists in our distributed evaluations yet they may never be linked or conveyed in real-time. To the coin-toss, it is a classic 50:50 scenario seemingly. The following URL has a helpful interactive explanation, and reminds me of an important lesson from probability; that it mathematically involves the area between 1 and 0. 1 is associated with truth and 0 is associated with falsity. Probability - theory of tossing coins http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/probability/info.htm And so calculations that often exists as 'towards 1' such as .99 which is still not absolute truth or 1, yet highly like 1, nearly so, and in this way it would be easy to say it is 'highly probable' if it were regarding an evaluation in terms of its weighting, .30 would be closer to falsity, and thus 'improbable' in terms of tending toward truth. This is relevant if 'reasoning' were occurring at .10 in terms of its empirical evaluation, or .05 out of 1, which is what the previous claim of subjective math involves. Whereas grounded modeling could tend toward .99 via a rigorous methodology going beyond this languaging. In any case an epiphany occurred in class because this classic coin-toss is the ultimate binary assumption, that a coin lands on either 'heads' or 'tails' -- even the above explanation makes it seem this simple and yet because of probability it is astounding not correct. In other words this classic 2-value situation actually exists in 3-values and under certain highly improbable conditions the coin could land on its edge (!) -- meaning, heads/edge/tails. It is a miniscule change, born of mathematical analysis, and yet if tossing a coin enough it could feasibly occur. In the 2-value analysis, such an event would be in error and ignored, a new toss would occur to substitute for the anomalous event, because it is outside the criteria used for evaluation of heads or tails. Whereas 'edge' is both or neither heads or tails. 3-value. What is amazing about this 'potentiality' is that a coin- toss is not a 50:50 situation, it is more like 49.999% and 49.999%, likely more nines on each, yet in that approximation somewhere is hidden this other event, this other possibility or potential that challenges the model and yet can remain otherwise unaccounted for due to prevailing binary assumption. Thus an issue of ambiguity in what could be the most clear-cut example of binary processing and decision-making, flipping an object on one-side or another and determining what side it lands on or is observed. And that this sidedness can become ambiguous or its boundary condition can at times not describe the event that actually occurs. Whoever has played football (soccer here in the U.S.) may have been at a coin toss to determine the kickoff, which team starts play. In those conditions, depending on the length of grass, perhaps its variety, density even, a coin toss can at times be itself inconclusive -- the coin can land close to vertically within grass and thus a new toss is required to determine which team has the ball. In other words, in some cases it is not entirely vertical (I) yet may only be 5% heads and thus inconclusive, and this again is that question of gradient, gray-area. It is also possible that within a given environment, say a highly magnetic force-field generated realm, that a tossed coin could be prevented from falling on its side, such that it remains vertical given its peculiar context. And thus indeterminate if viewed as heads or tails. So in the classroom an empirical statistical anomaly actually could be encountered in everyday situations and the binary coin toss (that is not always this) is an example of another realm currently unaccounted for. While this 'potential' for a third value exists in binary considerations, it is not allowed to or disregarded, these important anomalies where experience and knowledge reside, realms of observations invalidated by binary reasoning because it does not fit into the simple black or white worldview, true or false, on/off. So in that situation: what may be 1 in 10,000 odds if not far lower of a coin landing on its edge within certain conditions, is compared to the probability it lands on its side, one or the other, is nearly certain or probable (nearly 100%) or .9999999 whatever. (percentages and probably are different realms, though .9999 as it relates to truth or 1 can also be translated into 99.99% as related to 100%). It is about proportion. It is almost impossible or highly improbable, this 3-value scenario in the coin-toss, yet in real-life it is often encountered. And thus mathematically, this binary evaluation (evaluation of 'truth' and 'falsity') is nearly certain in its capacity to model such an either-or-event. Such that this statistical anomaly is disregarded in explanation of the coin toss. Yet it is potential. This potentiality, its hidden quality that can be expressed under certain conditions, was what opened up the question of 3-value consideration for me, in that it allowed a way of understanding and evaluating paradox in its 'inbetweenness.' If it is not a heads or tails, what is it? Well, it can be this other value, this third option. And thus for instance the question of the 7-segment display with an E or 3 in a blurred merged unification could become this third value. And further, if it is modeled in analog it could be even more this as the gray-area could expand to partial-states whereby N-value observations or finer sampling of the figure could chart its movement across the realm from 0 to 1 and 1 to 0 via continual rotation; moving from 3 into not-3, else 3, partial-3, not-3 for instance, to even .3 or .1 or .99 evaluations. So what do you call something that is potentially many things yet not distinguishable as these things. That there is some probability it exists in the structure yet may not be on the surface for observation given existing conditions. Say it is embedded ordering or latent part of its structural potential yet not activated. The 7-segment or 16-segment LED displays in this way relate to probability in so far as they potentially can display all numbers and hexadecimal for the first, and all numbers and letters in the second, and yet any letter or number may not be visible within a given observation or particular conditions. And yet if either of these symbols were itself lit up, what is the possibility it could be a given letter or number or some combination thereof. For instance, if there is a 7-segment display lit up as the number '8' as is its iconic form, each of the letters b d p q could be in that particular shape. If there were only 2 letters, what is the probability of any given pair, combined. They are not all equal, b and d together would not add up graphically to an 8, nor the letters p and q. Yet the b and q could else d and p could. So the odds of various contexts and situations can shift according to the way things are structured and how they relate, according to number but also beyond this, to include that of pattern-matching in certain scenarios. It is in this way logic can become an issue of visual reasoning, where it is about modeling ideas and shared structuring, where it enters into a realm of puzzlework, ideas. Fitting together, rearranging, identifying patterns. It is difficult to know if this is conveying the basic idea given the abstraction necessary to share a real-world example that could be locally tested. What it is an attempt to provide is a basis for how 3-value observations are a regular occurrence yet remain this day mediated in binary 2-value terms, thus forcing both inaccurate observations yet also ungrounded 'absolutist' frameworks for reasoning whereby [absolute truth] is assumed the default for basic exchange when it is closer to .0000001, etc. The discovery for me was that what was modeled in probability is actually inverted in real-world practice, in that experience tends towards 3-value not 2-value, and so the latter is improbable versus its assumed authority for decision-making and for determining what will be true by ignoring anomaly. In other words, the probability that absolute truth is being mediated without error is tending towards absolute falsity (0) versus that it is highly probable given that things may not function in A=A dynamics yet may be forced into those framework by default. At some point I think when there was a levitating magnet on dry ice at a campus exhibit that talk of superposition may have been encountered or of consideration of molecular structures in reading. And in the way it offers a conceptual description, as something could be 1/3rd or 2/3rds something that it begins to offer a way to describe how partial states can exist inbetween the end parameters that a situation spans, in the gray area between 'sides'. 3=3 partial-3 | partial-E E=E That realm between 3=3 and E=E is the gray-area and this is a realm that can be ambiguous and may not even be known as 'partial 3' or 'partial E' it may instead be 'unknown' or 'unidentifiable' in contrast. It could be not-3 and not-E yet function within the parameters outlined, where a question of 3 or E may instead be evaluated in terms of 'other'. If the actual substance of this is under review, it is further to propose that 3=3 or E=E may not be real-world conditions and it may only ever be: A = ~A, or that partial evaluations exist due to the inaccessibility of absolute frameworks, beyond mathematic idealism. While a basic experiment such as an animated LED display could involve matching symbols, if this gets into language and ideas, it more often than not most likely or probably always involves a realm such as: [A] [~A] <-------- | --------> [~B] [B] Where A=A equates with 1 or truth, and B=B likewise, these absolute yet contingent, such that observations normally occur always within the range of [~A to ~B] which is the grey-area of three value, n-value logic. What this is to say is that scientific observation, most mathematics, likely all language, exists in the partial realm of ~A to ~B, or 'on the edge of the coin toss', in that truth is mixed with bias, distortion, warping, error, and thus is 'partially true' to greater or lesser degree yet that impurity keeps it beyond the purity of 1, yet if existing uncorrected, moves towards zero instead in terms of exchange upon exchange upon exchange in this partial condition. So in certain circumstances it may not even be possible to mediate an either-or framework or use binary decision-making because the absolute framework does not realistically exist as an observational condition, if anomalies exist, such that it is only partially true, not wholly true. In this way the realm of A and B are removed as 'ordinary' conditions, this grounded empiricality. It is a presumption detached from the reality, to include scientific observation on its own terms without accounting for truth outside its biasing. In other words, what is modeled by probability relates to how something exists and is evaluated. If a coin is only assumed to have 2-sides and no depth, the edge is only a fiction, and yet it is not, if it has an edge then it is somehow part of the modeling. Likewise if a concept or idea has N-dimensions and only say 10 of them are referenced, this is only a partial evaluation of its potential as an [idea], and therefore this is how superposition can exist in terms of the empirical modeling of things, their relativisms each a probability to some degree or another, as facets of the larger whole, yet like the classic story of those touching parts of an elephant, it is not an elephant until brought together whole, in this way, so too, ideas concepts words meaning. That is why grounding of circuitry is required for accurate modeling that removes error which in itself statistically tends towards its own falsity, whereas today this is relied upon as structure. Someone can speak of the foot, all in itself as the whole and either disregard someone else speaking of the tusk or they likewise the other, and the observations never add up, empirically. Its turned inside out, a universe of elephant foot, elephant ear, elephant tusk, yet no elephant here. The elephant in the room invisible because of this. The issue of fuzzyness then in terms of ambiguity in the potential states of a given observation and its criteria, its range of questioning. The term was heard at some point online and intuitively already understood, because of this reasoning process. No formal mathematical relation beyond that of the 3-value discovery within the coin toss example, which is essentially opening up a larger realm of the n-value, which fuzzyness tends to describe in that it has a larger range of potential ambiguities. The wonderful aspect of reading about Lotfi Zadeh is that his discovery and mathematical development was seen related to his overlapping heritage, in that common everyday experience of how questions exist and how they are mediated. And then with his skills translating this observation via mathematic reasoning which I cannot read so cannot truly relate to the work. It is an abstraction modeling the characteristic in itself, it would seem, whereas by comparison it could be an issue of mediating superposition of [countries] or of [heritage] and remain valid in terms of 'fuzzy logic' as this relates to 3-value and more likely n-value views. e.g. X = country ~X = { .IR .RU .US .AZ } In terms of grounded reasoning, everyone has the capacity to be a logician, to evaluate 'logic' in these everyday terms and it is only an issue of literacy and providing a way of communicating what is already known and already mediated yet forced into the false perspective of binarism. And so a person does not need to be a mathematician or read complex notation or other calculative equation-based views to get at the essence of things, their question and accurate appraisals and to analyze and develop models and hypotheses for testing and evaluation. A=A and A=~A and 1 and 0 and probabilities and weighting between truth and falsity (.99 <-> .01) would allow a majority of empirical reasoning to take place and be mediated in debate and within shared observation, accounting for truth and error. Fuzzy logic and fuzzy math and fuzzy sets have been related to ambiguous data, especially with robotics and machine-vision where a robot will evaluate a situation in terms of pattern-matching, where it may only have partial-matches to what it already knows, and thus like a puzzle, it seeks to identify what matches and what does not, and something may be A = A and recognized while others may be A = ~A and only a partial view of something larger and it may remain a question. And so it is contingent, a potential, a possibility. Is the robot in one hallway or another, maybe it needs to turn around and add up another view to get more information and then might know. Else maybe it needs to start mapping beyond its known boundary and thus extend off of the data sets already established, building on their structure, as hallways connect or light fixtures change or obstacles are repeatedly encountered and thus become established reference points. A puzzle then, a question, a person or robot in a condition, partly knowing and partly not, and only in some cases mediating A = A, while in many others it could be functioning beyond this, in partial realms where ~A predominates the relationship between observer & observed. Now what if our robot, ourselves, were to assume what is the operating model for our machine vision is A=A when it is actually not, and thus reasoned viewpoints are ungrounded, not mapping the territory that exists, only virtual if not unreal. And so what would happen if the robot suddenly were to shift to ~A = ~A modeling, that in its resolution can tend towards a grounded A=A condition, yet only after connecting every perspective, accurately evaluating every angle of every potential observer and then mediating the shared condition this way. An example of the ambiguity of observation is provided by a prevailing question in 1872 about whether a galloping horse has one foot on the ground or if all of its feet are off the ground at the same time. This could be a question of belief, some may say 'yes' there is a foot on the ground at all times, others may say 'no' there is not. Yet because it was not possible to actually tell since the movement was so quick, that like a spinning object in superposition, a potential existed that either event was a possibility. And thus, it could be evaluated as a 3-value situation, where the observation exists in 'the unknown', between these two choices. And so when Muybridge the photographer did his animal locomotion photographs, it resolves this scenario by enabling a finer sampling rate, by allowing the human eye to catch up with the pace of the horse, and so to see beyond its boundary and verify that all feet are off the ground and the horse is in flight during its galloping state. What could not be determined and was in a realm of ambiguity was through further and increased examination then determined to be on a given side. Yet without that extra involvement of inquiry, it could remain in a realm of the unknown. A possibility or potential yet inconclusive, not yet known. Though it could be believed, assumed. Most language exists in this [ambiguity], especially those [concepts] referenced in their [archetypal] permanence, as if they are already known by being referenced, when instead, these are scenarios not of [on/off] in terms of their truth, instead they are more [galloping horses] in terms of the [unknowns] mixed in with the knowns that remain undifferentiated in language. Logic and empirical grounding of the observers, like Muybridge's camera to the question of the gallop, allows this finer resolution of sampling to occur, by combining all views of the event, then to determine its legitimacy in its wholeness versus in its [partiality]. In that a person could witness one hoof off the ground and assume all hoofs, and another one hoof on the ground and assume all hoofs on the ground. And so concepts, ideas, reasoning ad absurdum, in terms of exchange. Reading and writing today could be equivalent to pattern matching, and given the means of logic, how accurate or inaccurate a given view may be if it is grounded in truth or within a virtuality that tends towards an absolute falsity. The idea is a circuit that grounds through its logic back into the truth that structures and sustains it. If the idea is faulty, or its structuring, it collapses upon inspection, cannot withstand the forces of evaluation due to bias, warping, distortion, other views. The empirical is made & meant to withstand this, because it is based within truth, robust in that truth is its foundation, its structure, logic establishing and supporting this. And here to convey that it is and can be 3-value logic, that is tending towards absolute truth of the binary, of highest probability observations that the improbable and-or inaccurate would not be allowed alongside unless its truth is proven and removed of error, otherwise it would make contaminate "the entire map". The threshold for logical reasoning, for exchange, is truth. It is the requirement. Not just affect or opinion or assumption. And this tends towards debate, contention, argument, hypothesis and shared modeling. The challenge of ideas versus their neutering. The beauty of thought versus its incapacitation. In other words, these words are written to try to convey something, yet more and more words must be written to clarify what already cannot be said by their use. It is as if writing for clarification and yet never achieving, only approximating it. Like it is never within this framework even, yet attempting to be accessed within such language. To write new ideas takes more words, many more. Because there is no pre-established view to access. So it is tremendously inefficient and time-consuming to convey original thinking versus what is already answered and can be assumed as a shared POV. In this way, communication tends to the ideologic and as language by default, to the ungrounded. In this way truth is outcast from conversation and relativized in gated communities of binary opinion. These dynamics of: lesser truths > greater truth that biasing, limits, boundaries, warping allow. So what if logic is actually something ordinary and not removed from common experience, that it is natural and part of inherent processing abilities, and it is more an issue of reconfiguring it so that it is more accurate and aligned with truth, than of having some esoteric expert practice requiring of new degrees to achieve, versus of common sense. Perhaps it is like puzzlework, each of us our own puzzles to mediate, questions, perspectives, and observations, given dimensionality: puzzle-logic. What if [concept1] and [concept2] are viewed in this framework of missing pieces and alignments and order and structure and relationship between various states and conditions. What if [this] and [that] are mediated both by a given individual and also by a group, and some have some pieces and others have others, and that only together will the combined [this-and-that] be achieved in its gradient resolution, as the N-dimensional hoofs or the other details are brought together in a shared framework or coherent structure, to error-check & error-correct, and in this way to more accurately model what exists. The difference between a 2-value and 3-value paragraph could be that a biased 2-value person may mediate it in onesided terms, such that it is viewed as a 100% true in language, due to belief removed of its validation in actual truth. It can be viewed as 'perfect' because some truth exists in it, is carried by its scaffolding and perhaps this is its potential, to convey truth via this conflicted medium. And yet a 3-value evaluation could look at the same paragraph and see it in more ambiguous terms, of partial truth amidst partial falsity, and could only determine what is true by removing what is not. And in doing so, the sentences may fall away, many interlinking words, until only some aspect of some partial view of a larger conceptualization existing beyond this paragraph were identified as part of its validity, its extended connection to empirical reasoning that validates its truth, via others observation and the truth of the world. In this way, whatever is true could be seen at the higher rate of sampling required for its truth, however finite and miniscule a point it may be in another context, versus having it forced into approximation where this truth equates with all of this that is unrelated and unnecessary to it, in its purity and isolation as a concept beyond this instance. In this way, this sentence and this paragraph in their nearly absolute imperfection, in this difficulty of language that torments both reader and writer who writes, to try to convey and yet continually fail, due to this limitation, this threshold, boundary condition, where what is observed is not able to be seen or talked about in this medium because it is so low resolution by comparison, everything is a blur, this the default. Only [details], only [partial views], hoof after hoof after hoof, detail after detail, observation after unconnected uncorrelated observation, etc. Most essentially, [relativism] upon [relativism]. The binary view requires this condition to be simplified and evaluated in an approximation, that this tends towards perfection, in its ideality. That to do this involves ignoring the ambiguity, so that a typo can invalidate a claim based on this superficiality of language upon its surface, as if a shiny thing that to be bought and sold. The 3-value view recognizes inherent error, in this way, fuzzyness by default of ambiguity, meaning that that absolute framework of true or false is not the starting point, it is the end- point of every effort combined and then still only contingent upon its truth given evidence. In this way, meaning, from ungrounded belief that requires power for its authority and rule, to logical reasoning based in grounded truth, these two very different kinds of enlightenment, one even standing against accounting for truth while the other not existing without its integrity. Then reasoning and exchange, issues like [public] and [private], communicated about how these might be modeled differently if onesided biasing versus its neutralization. Anything and everything, in this same way. Fuzzy logic then does function as 3-value such that it operates in this middle realm, and to the degree of its sampling, it can move further into and operate in N-value conditions, zones where there may be more unknowns than knowns, requiring logical structures based on the existing puzzle pieces to mediate what is unknown via extension and evaluation of modeling, along with new hypotheses, consideration. Perhaps something is already in error that is relied upon, and thus contingency, and changing, refining of existing approach. The condition that exists in observation yet especially in language at its most evident appears to be that what is observed as an event exists in [superposition]. And that if this is forced into a biased evaluation, it is easy to say 'heads' or 'tails' and remove the ambiguity and just assume truth or falsity, based on pragmatism relevant to a limited viewpoint, where either it is useful or not and thus self-interested consideration yet not necessarily aligned with larger truth. And what the question of fuzzy logic or 3-value or N-value observation involves is that every concept would start within this consideration, where instead of absolute truth being mediated in these [variables] instead what is in superposition is this question of their ~partialness, each and every concept only a partial view of [X]. And therefore, if only a partial view, then each concept would function as ~concept instead or [~X] unless empirically modeled and removed of all surrounding, supporting error and distortion. In this way, context or the contextualization of a variable cannot be removed from its surrounding influence. It supports and provides the framework and 'reasoning' as it were, all this extraneousness. In this way, a paragraph mentioning [the state] and [the economy] and various other attributes would instead be modeled as [~the state] in its partiality and [~the economy] in its partiality, by default of the inherent ambiguousness of these variables, that they are not the N-dimensional 'whole concept' that is separated from this same surrounding error in language, nor as concepts removed of it themselves such that what is said about economy is only 'true'. Thus, until that is what is referenced, it is not-true, only partially so, and likely only minutely given the context, if at all, such as the empty examples above. A statement such as [X] [Y] [Z] then while it is ideal for binary processing in yes/no terms, would instead by default be evaluated as [~X] [~Y] [~Z] in a fuzzy logic framework of three value and n-value considerations, in that this is where ideas start, communication exists, exchange, 'reasoning'. And thus while ideas may be processed as [XYZ] they are in truth more accurately and realistically occurring in a realm of [~XYZ] as an observational condition. Thus the weighting of truth, 'tending toward truth' or 'toward falsity' via weighted analysis/evaluation where probabilities have a fundamental role in the reasoning process, for grounding of ideas. The 'virtual state' relies upon XYZ viewpoints and their communication as if acceptable, tolerable, and is the basis for power and authority today. That it cannot be challenged without retaliation, forced submission, this is its power, the oppression. Ungrounded relativism is required to sustain its POV. Beliefs which function beyond their accounting in truth, such perspectives a basis for action; "uncertainty", etc. All of these things and viewpoints can be destroyed. Discredited, proven false, completely obliterated as sustainable ideas within a logic-based evaluation. Entire worldviews can be dismantled immediately. And the thing about logic is that it is transparent. Check the code. Reason it. You have higher truth, prove it. Show your cards. Stop the bullshitting. Stop playing games. Let's get down to 1's and 0's. The big issue is that a [concept] actually exists in a state of superposition, a grey-area that is being unaccounted for, not properly observed or accurately evaluated and these 'errors' allow for the given reality, by ignoring the anomalies involved, as if a simple heads tails coin toss. [X] as absolute truth is the default assumption versus that of [~X] in a state of superposition, each and every idea only a partial viewpoint. In this way, 3-value logic assumes imperfection and the question is where things start, that this is not in the absolute truth, it is in the gradient, on the edge of the coin as normative condition, the inverse of the coin-toss in its probabilities. The probability [X] is referenced by [~X.POV1] of N-dimensions, say a billion, tends towards .00000001 of a truth, potentially, not its entirety. For that every partial viewpoint would need to be combined and error corrected to accurately represent the truth of X via shared observation. That is not the default condition and yet for the binarist, this is the place assumed things start. As if X=X simply by referencing the sign, even if it is only virtual, ungrounded from the reality. X + (trust me) = Y becomes the situation. X + (historical reference) = Y assumes the same. There is a grey-area in [~historical reference] that never was resolved or removed of its error, and so in referencing it, it is not in its purity that it exists, it is in this self-annihilating context which requires this ambiguity and like a parasite, feeds off of this approximation of truth, this inaccuracy of interaction and observation to entrap and to confine it and make it impossible to go beyond this limiting framework, which suits binarists fine, because perhaps this is precisely its purpose. Once the puzzle is pieced together, the view here collapses, as if truth suspended within another medium, its skeletal aspect tied to its life, buried within this excessiveness of words, as if what is required is dusting away with the small gestures of hand brooms, excavations here and there, yet what if all of it were to be removed at once, the sustained falsity then what may be made visible of concepts if they exist beyond this, no longer hidden within it. In other words, ideas existing between truth and falsity, the approximation that occurs is to estimate and seek to determine given the ambiguity and given other viewpoints, what may actually exist, this in terms of questions. Whereas a binarist may force only answers, via a deterministic and predetermined view based on beliefs, carried over assumptions. Thus a showdown, duels, challenges, this is the classic role of thinkers, to take on these situations, to reveal a greater truth involved. And so what if an ordinary citizen also has this capacity to logically reason against the machine-view and its many true-believers. A few years ago I wrote about panoptic logic which is a particular perspective that allows for every view of a 360^ situation to be seen, as observers encircle a common experience, each having their own observations that may be unique, and also involves paradox, such as the 7-segment rotating 3|E. If this blurring were to be stopped, and a single observer to look at the situation, they may only see one-side of it, an E or 3 or partial condition if not its edge. Whereas if every person who surrounds this event were to see in their own way, their own part or partial view of it, that in their correlation and combination, it would be possible to model the whole, as both a 3 and an E and to resolve the spinning 8. Without every observer, the partiality may never been overcome. Yet with high enough resolution of the actual condition or situation it feasibly would be possible to account for every thing accountable, within whatever limits may exist, to gain the most accurate modeling from which to evaluate the event. Instead of having it bound to one observer and their partial view and-or then another. If all truth were accounted for, perhaps even in the blurred state, that it could be deduced to some degree that one-side could be a 3 and another an E, for instance if like with Muybridge a technological extension were used, at every point of observation and thus even at speed, via these advanced tools, to allow for such dizzying specific observations. Such that likewise, each person could say, 30% E and 55% 3, around the circle, until the enigma is resolved. The issue could be that people are the ones who are spinning. The observer is constantly in motion in this erratic way, without stabilized observation. Essentially without gyroscope or compass. Maybe the world is not so confused or so entirely confusing and instead it ours, our confusion, our incoherence, as a whole. Maybe our "cameras" which can sample do not have our maps lined up together, and thus we each get lost in our own hallways of the labyrinth, and yet only can access a puzzle piece here or there of another, instead of every known solution where truth resolves a condition collectively. What if each our individual puzzles actually a cosmic puzzle, each our own detail of it, yet without each other, no such cosmos exists, no such map to reference as real. Maybe the code saying too simply yes/no is distorting vision, creating false views and exchange with apparitions instead. Changing the code, what might distributed sensor networks relay as puzzle pieces if what is communicated were neutralized of bias, or shared perspective were possible, the potential within each view as it may be related to others via its truth. In this perhaps my broken camera and corrupted coding of events and their relay combine with another who is not so broken in these ways and has their unique vantage to share and likewise others, to fill in various gaps of the puzzle. It is this navigation, this use of referents for their directionality, that is requiring of the integrity of language. And thus it is proposed it begins in this impossibility and ambiguity, imperfection, fuzzyness, and by recognizing it, allows realignment and also calibration of observation and of reasoning, via shared modeling, concepts. And so of these, of all the concepts and of all the language and of all the questions of code, and technology, and culture, there is at its base, its origin and foundation in logic. That truth is validated, established this way. That it is what reasoning is essentially about. Accessing, mediating, sharing, clarifying this. Today in an imperfect world with chaotic and ungrounded connections with one another, 3-value logic is a tool to establish this truth and relations within it, via acknowledging this context of partiality it involves. And in this way it is entirely possible if not probable to address each and every issue that is of highest purpose through these means, yet it requires this more intense involvement with ideas to accomplish, where words and their meaning is not simply arbitrary when it suits and absolute when needed. And thus it seems impossible to not relate the observer with what is observed. If the observer can see themselves in 3-value terms, their own imperfections, so as to relate outward and elsewhere this way. Some cannot, via whatever limitations, and so may not be able to transition to a different way of approaching things immediately. Yet others may find it very natural and just an issue of voicing of something already known by experience and thus may intuitively and inherently understand or even provide additional clarification about what this all involves. And so perhaps such people can mediate these questions from the start in terms of exchange, with challenging 2-value views yet also in doing so, not from a position of 'perfection' - instead of humility to truth and its observance- that modeling a situation often goes beyond a given viewpoint or perspective, and requires neutrality for observation, error-correction, and also contingency, in addition to the unknown. It's a different mindset than what exists. Because if truth prevails, we all prevail. An ungrounded binarist would be terrified by the uncontrollable unknown, they want to stop it from being allowed, its recognition because that is its reality, becoming [sign]. A 3-value or paradoxical thinker is at least operational within the ambiguity, unlike the insecure binarist, and can navigate chaos via hidden order otherwise unaccounted for. It is an intuitive realm, this typic potentiality. The working-model or hypothesis key, these as concepts even, frameworks or whatever they may be called. Thus, sharing of ideas like tools to use in given situations, so to work-through or better observe, understand. The panoptics already occurring yet not yet aligned in a coherent way to enable supra- structure of observation beyond the finite. The biggest challenge for the personal shift is achieving grounding as an observer, so to be able to function in diverse conditions, to retain balance and clear thinking despite chaos or biasing or power-based influences. Logical reasoning is this capacity, for sanity. For good decision-making. For neutralization and error-correction. Self as feedback circuit. These types of diagnostics arrive through a 3-value or N-value framework, not the binary because they are avoidable via onesidedness. So in this sense, in this individual question of capacity, it is of the superposition of the self in its potential to function at its highest level, such that the [~individual] is in a situation, and to reach their more true self requires accurately modeling and governing of the self, such that by moving in the optimal way and in the best direction, making the correct and right decisions, better versus worse, it then tends towards an improved version, where this motivation is to the [individual] in their purified state, as the working-goal. And thus as [~people] relate with [~people] more and more through 3-value connections this becomes [people] relating with ourselves by figuring out the puzzle, the interconnectivity, grounding it, establishing shared working-models and purpose, and this begins within the grey-area. The logic it involves is deemably common sense. It just may take awhile to figure it out, how it works or as language, as method, how to communicate within the range it provides, more effectively or within shifted rulesets if not new tools than what today is allowed for communication and exchange. It is not a goal to write at length about these things yet it is required to share the ideas they involve, in the hope of clarifying the truth proposed to exist if evaluating this context in terms other than binary. There is overlap in this attempt at explanation of aspects involved, likely creating more confusion of an already confusing situation to evaluate. It is inherent, it is a limit of a finite observation of a flawed observer with a high-error rate where even the signal deteriorates before it is sent. I appreciate the chance to share these ideas because they have been like discoveries and perhaps others may find them of some use. And in this way, it would seem that there is a realm of practical logic that is not that of the expert system of mathematical notation and its abstract language - yet can have a similar effect for human reasoning and processing, as fuzzy sets have for computers & robots. And it is seemingly this 3-value and N-value ability that opens up reasoning to the way the world may more actually exist in its modeling. The questions of the N-dimensional realm that exist beyond the ordinary boundaries of today, of ruling and banal opinions, where the median condition becomes the height of everything as it is mediocritized. Language serves this well. It is a great leveler for status quo consensus. Like always picking the fruit low to the ground, the atmosphere of ideas made inaccessible. Brian Carroll # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org