Re: Existence requires Non-Existence?

Stephen Paul King (
Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:05:17 +0100 (MET)

"Will" <> wrote:

>In reading about fuzzy logic, I noticed that it is still possible to have
>absolute true and absolute false values. If some idea is absolutely true,
>take for example "This is water," then from my understanding, the 'This'
>falls into the set of things that are water with a truth value of 1.0, but
>it does not fall into the set of things that are not water. In every other
>instance along the continuum, however, the 'This' would fall into both sets.
>Correct me if I'm wrong.
>This doesn't make much sense to me. It seems more practical to include the
>'This' with a 0 truth value in the set of not water things as well. This
>reflects the idea that for something to exist, the idea of its opposite must
>also exist even if there is no real expression of that opposite. Basically,
>if something is water, there has to be a conception of something that is
>absolutely not water, otherwise, it is meaningless to be just water.
>At an extreme end, if all there was was water--I would say a universe of
>water, but then there would be a universe--then there could be no idea of
>water because there would be nothing to relate it to.
>Am I off the deep end with this?


If we think about it, at grundlagen levels, it is necessary to
have a context for anything to be defined against. In order for
Existance to Exist, Nothingness can not Non-exist. Bart Kosko's work
on Fuzzy logic Entropy goes a long way in showing this relationship.
We can think of "This is water" and "This is not water" to be
complementary opposites that form the bounds of the fuzzy set that
includes all possible combinations that lie "in-between."
The real trick is to extend this motion to more that two
possibilities. This increases the dimensions of the fuzzy hypercube.

I highly recommend Kosko'sbook: Neural Networks and Fuzzy
Systems, Prentice Hall, 1992, ISBN: 0-13-611435-0


Stephen Paul King