Subject: Re: Problem in Fuzzy Risk Analysis
From: ca314159 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Aug 07 2000 - 16:40:44 MET DST
In article <email@example.com>,
> The works in fuzzy risks must promote
> the study of the foundations of fuzzy logic.
Economically speaking, or in terms of physical health ?
Risk is a very broad subject and relates to many things.
Fuzzy logic is likewise a very broad subject, which
has many faces and many names. The newsgroup "comp.ai.fuzzy"
is itself ironically a distinction that is itself fuzzy.
Where does fuzzy begin and where does it end ?
Is it an accountable set, or is it really the _art_ of
generating "unaccountable facts" ?
The sample set only accounts for the enumerated elements
inside it; any use of a sample set to generalize over a
population yields at best "unaccountable facts".
Risk, can therefore be a very philosophical topic especially
when "credit" is analogued with "faith" or "probability".
Life is largely a self-fullfilling prophesy;
a paradox of "unaccountable" "facts".
>To: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
>From: ca314159 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 07:06:17 -0700
>> 1. [Q-Mind] [Robot-for-President] Can a Quantum Computer Compute
>> So-called...- F.W. Poley.
>> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:32:53 -0400
>> From: uzi awret <awret@EROLS.COM>
>> Subject: [Q-Mind] [Robot-for-President] Can a Quantum Computer
>> So-called...- F.W. Poley.
>> From: Franklin Wayne Poley <email@example.com>
>> Subject: [Robot-for-President] Can a Quantum Computer Compute
>> "Non-computible" Numbers? [fwd]
>> PS-What is the penalty for "roboperjury"?
>"Quantum" is a perjury of "duality" which is central to most
>of the greatest historical debates on subjects from that of
>religious experience to that of physical measurement.
>For this reason there is speculation that, central to the idea
>of "consciousness", is the idea of duality or the mind-body
>problem. And this isn't surprising, except when we cloak words
>and start talking about the same thing in terms of the
>wave-particle duality where the waves are _subjective_ elements
>such as the probability waves in a quantum computer and the
>particles are _objective_ like the body.
>The duality between context and resolution affects all manners
>of experience from vague observations to specific measurements.
>You cannot see both a cat and the flea on its back with the
>same resolution simultaneously. All experiences and measurements
>are subject to this dualism.
>This applies equally well to mathematics. A Moebius strip or
>Klein bottle has an inside and an outside which are the same.
>You may at one point in traversing their surfaces, claim you
>are on the "outside", and subtley, sometimes unnoticebly find
>out later you are on the "inside". That can be a surprising
>event to some people and then they may derive some notion that
>they have mysteriously "tunnelled" into the inside or some
>Every distinction is context sensitive. This includes the notion
>of a particle, the notion of a wave, the notion of an integer,
>the notions of good and evil,...etc. These are all distinctions
>or as they are sometimes called "measurements" and at other times
>they are called the less specific term "observations"; and even
>"experiences" which have the broadest context with the least
>Because of the context sensitivity of these distinctions there
>is a deep relation to the formal language theory of computer
>science and the algorithmic complexity related to NP completeness
>problems. But the essential aspect which binds all this together
>is the idea that at some times, distinctions seem absolute while
>at other times they seem vague.
>This led to one great debate amoung many, the Einstein-Bohr debate.
>Einstein ironically argued for the absolutist point of view, that
>the world was in some sense deterministic, while Bohr
>(considered the more fundamentalist) ironically argued for
>the uncertain or relativist point of view. Each traversed the
>Moebius strip in opposite directions and each found themselves
>in irony or paradox supporting sides which contradicted themselves.
>Their 'insides' and 'outsides' became inverted without their
>recognizing the topology on which their arguments are inevitably
>seated due to 'duality'.
>The reason every distinction is subject to uncertainty is that,
>while we can define the inside of a set A, by enumerating its contents,
>we cannot in general do the same for the outside of the set.
>We therefore run into the problem of ignorance of the set ~A.
>With such ignorance, rigorous definition of the set A as_a_concept
>is not possible. The set A is only rigorously definable for
>the specific elements which were enumerated. This creates a problem
>when we try to generalize the set A to elements not enumerated in
>it, for purposes of prediction. This same problem arises in
>statistical sampling theory and the zero probability problem in
>Since a definition of the set A is arbitrarily assignable to
>the "inside" or "outside" of a Klein bottle we find that the
>morphism between A and ~A is invertable. We could for instance
>start out with defining some vaguely elemented set A, a Hilbert
>space for instance, and then find out that ~A is enumerable.
>This is what quantum computers, analogically speaking, can do.
>The same process is often carried out in our own minds when
>we turn a vague batch of ideas from vague set Question into
>a specific set ~Question (or answer). This is not "consciousness"
>per se, but it leads many to think of consciousness when
>physical processes start to look like the same processes that
>occur in the human mind.
>Classical science and mathematics affords us only knowledge of
>the syntax and vocabulary of the "languages" it recognizes. The
>context sensitive semantics and grammars are more the provence
>of the newer quantum paradigm that incorporates the ideas of
>fuzzy logic, quantum logic, and non-binary dualities in general.
>This is not strictly speaking in the rhelm of classical science
>anymore than it is in the rhelm of pure philosophy. It is a hybrid
>area of study more akin to art which incorporates both pragmatic
>concerns of technique and contextual elements of expression.
>Because of this, quantum whatever, is related to everything from
>politics to particle theory. It's the duality of distinctions,
>context vs. resolution, that concerns all these areas.
>A web search on the word "duality", or "dualism", or related words
>like "paradox", will verify that it is a pervasive problem in all
>areas of the human experience.
>The trick is to find "comfort", or a level of context vs. resolution
>which is aesthetic in its subjective experience and pragmatic in
>its objective physical usage: technology. Science and religions
>both become "uncomfortable" when we dissect either of them too
>Science forcebly becomes philosophic in the quantum rhelm,
>religion becomes scientific when it is forceably dissected
>to literal concerns. A measurement or an idea are both subject
>to dissection and our devices and/or our minds tell us when
>we cannot, need not, or should not, dissect further.
>The logical operator "or" is context sensitive. How many times
>have we perjured its usage to mean "xor" (either but not both)
>or "aor" (and/or).
>To answer the question:
> The consequences of such perjurys are paradoxes.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
This message was posted through the fuzzy mailing list.
(1) To subscribe to this mailing list, send a message body of
"SUB FUZZY-MAIL myFirstName mySurname" to firstname.lastname@example.org
(2) To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send a message body of
"UNSUB FUZZY-MAIL" or "UNSUB FUZZY-MAIL email@example.com"
(3) To reach the human who maintains the list, send mail to
(4) WWW access and other information on Fuzzy Sets and Logic see
(5) WWW archive: http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/marchives/fuzzy-mail/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 16:58:48 MET DST