[time 273] Re: [time 269] Re: [Time 267] and [Time 83] and [Questions about Time and fuzzy hypersets]

Ben Goertzel (ben@goertzel.org)
Mon, 03 May 1999 10:09:55 -0400

> How space and time are dynamical inverses is somewhat like a thought
>that I have been mulling over for a long time! :) But I never thought of
>it this way! ({X = ~X} -> (X = X}) <-> ({X = X} -> {X = ~X}) I think
>that a infomorphism can be defined here! We just need to figure out the

I will work on formalizing this insight better

> Could you explain your reasoning of why the Min() and Max() operators
>of fuzzy logic are "not at all psychologically realistic"? This is
>driving me nuts! ;)

This is not a matter of reasoning, it is a matter of empirical science.
There are
numerous psychology papers on this.

If a human assesses the degree to which a bird is big to be .1, and the
degree to which a
bird is hungry to be .9, then the human will NOT assess the degree to which
the bird is
"big or ugly" to be .1, nor will the human assess the degree to which the
bird is "big and ugly"
to be .9. Nowhere near!!!

Now humans are not perfect reasoning systems, so you could argue that
humans are just
not doing things right.

But in building an artificial reasoning system I have seen no reason to use
Min and Max instead
of probability theory. the use of Min and Max is based on the assumption
that the distributive
law must hold exactly for reasoning on properties of fuzzy degrees of
certainty. I don't believe
that the distributive law must hold. I believe in elementary probability
which shows that in this
case it does not hold.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:10:30 JST