"Quick, give him a logical paradox!"

Stultus

Words to live by
Mar 10, 2002
893
1
18
Where TheNewChupe lives
Visit site

This headline is (half) false

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-2]
Oct 2nd 2003
From The Economist print edition
[/font]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]A new way to analyse self-referential and contradictory sentences[/size][/font]


[size=-1]EPIMENIDES the Cretan, a philosopher of the 6th century [size=-1]BC[/size], is said to have uttered the sentence, “All Cretans are liars”. As he himself was a Cretan, this gave rise to a paradox—if he were telling the truth, then he would be a liar. Depending on how one defines a liar, the paradox is resolvable; he could have been a habitual liar who was telling the truth in this one instance. However, a stronger version of the paradox, known as the Liar paradox—“this sentence is false”—is not resolvable in conventional logic systems.[/size]

[size=-1]Indeed, the circular loop that the sentence induces—if it is false, it must be true, and if true, false—has been used more than once in science-fiction movies to cause marauding computers to lose their sanity and explode. But in a new paper, Kostis Vezerides of the American College of Thessaloniki, and Athanasios Kehagias of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, in Greece, show that, in almost all cases, paradoxes such as the Liar are resolvable with the use of “fuzzy logic”.[/size]

[size=-1]Traditionally, logicians have made a stark distinction between truthhood and falsity. A statement was considered to be either true (given a truth value of one) or false (a value of zero). In the 1960s, Lotfi Zadeh of the University of California at Berkeley came up with the catchy innovation of “fuzzy logic”. In this system, things could be sort-of true, or only partially false. A “truth value” of 0.5 meant that a statement was half-true, and so forth.[/size]

[size=-1]In 1979, Dr Zadeh was the first to apply fuzzy logic to self-referential sentences, which can give rise to paradoxes like the ones above. (Not all self-referential sentences are paradoxical—consider “this sentence is true”.) He reasoned that the Liar sentence is exactly half-true. But more complicated self-referential paradoxes are trickier to resolve. One example is the “inconsistent dualist”, which can be thought of as a pair of brothers, one of whom asserts the other is lying, while the other says his brother is telling the truth.[/size]

[size=-1]Earlier work had shown how assigning fuzzy values to self-referential sentences could give rise to mathematical chaos. This is because the systems of equations that must be solved to determine the truth-values are often “non-linear”—so attempts to find a solution can rarely be found in the general case, but must be found numerically, closing in on the answer through several iterations of trial and error.[/size]

[size=-1]Dr Kehagias and Mr Vezerides, though, set out to find consistent solutions to fuzzy truth equations without chaotic oscillations. The first part of their insight is simple. Using an existing result from calculus called Brower's Fixed-Point Theorem, they proved that at least one solution could be found. They then tried several different numerical algorithms for finding that solution. The simplest is an extension of an idea that Isaac Newton himself had, which uses approximations to the non-linear equations to find their solutions. The method that seems to work best is borrowed from “control theory”, the science of how to operate complicated systems (such as aircraft or chemical plants).[/size]

[size=-1]For the comparatively simple case of the Liar, these methods all agree with Dr Zadeh's proof that the sentence is exactly half-true. The two brothers of the inconsistent dualist are also each telling exactly a half-truth. Indeed, the pair show that any set of self-referential sentences that assert complete truth or falsity about one another are exactly half-true. (Though other solutions are possible as well.) Other fractional truth-values arise when the sentences themselves make fuzzy assertions.[/size]

[font=verdana,geneva,arial,sans serif][size=-1]Dr Kehagias suggests two directions for further research. The first is to examine the various mathematical algorithms of fuzzy logic from the point of view of psychological authenticity. Since there might be more than one logically consistent solution to a problem, the idea would be to enable a computer to arrive at the same truth value that a human would, by reasoning in a similar fashion. The second possibility is to devise a form of logic that is in between “fuzzy” logic and normal, true-or-false binary logic. Rather than the infinite choices of fuzzy logic, or the two in binary logic, this would have options for false, true, sort of true, sort of false, and exactly half-way. Epimenides the Cretan would surely have approved, or disapproved—or, most likely, something in between. [/size][/font][/size]

 
humans are naturally binary creatures. i don't know if we could handle a logic system that's not based in binality.

(i'm pretty sure that's not a word, but you get my point)
 
hm, everything i've seen seems to disagree. the way we learn is binary, too. famously, noam chomsky's idea of structural linguistics was dis"proved" (by chomsky himself, i think, actually) when it was "discovered" that the brain didn't have an innate grammar, but rather a series of "on/off" switches, and as you learned a language your brain flipped the switches to on or off.

like "head first" language? switch ON. "head last"? switch OFF. so on and so forth for all the distinguishing chracteristics of a language.
 
What can be seen as a telling point in this discussion is the introduction of quantum computing - computers whose funtions are based on probability much like in the artice.

But neither quantum nor dyadic systems can be said to govern how out minds percieve. They may explain how our brains function at the most basic level (assuming, of course that thouse are the only two scenarios, which is doubtful), but do not begin to touch on whether humans can percieve truths that are not neatly seperated into "existence" and "void". The fact that most of our philosophical doctrines still revolve on whether thruth exists or not supports the claim that we think in terms of one and zero. But then all of our financial system is based on risk - which we've defined in our perception as a percentage of chance, and definitely not clear a cut yes or no. But since all risk-management in the end leads to a choice of whether or not to act...

I'm going to stop here and look up the word "coherence".
 
Even a binary system can create really complex stuff if you have a lot of binary operations, depending on their arrangement. Just as a (binary-based) computer can carry out non-binary tasks, the (binary) brain can also move away from binality (!). I just think it's difficult, I guess, especially when it's something as deep and basic as reasoning, which we do in a binary way (we set up, in our minds, an object, find the object's opposite, and then think of possibilities in between, or permutations of, those objects).

Maybe in the future, we'll be trained in quantum THINKING or learning techniques.
 
Even a binary system can create really complex stuff

Oh absolutely, a very very long time ago I posted a long passage from Stephen Wolfram, who definitely would lead one to believe that we live in a binary world, and whose experiments with simple cellular-automata-based "life" games shows that simple rules (and with a very low number of calculations per state) can make extraordinarily complex and unpredictable results. Unpredictable of course, in that you can't predict the 300,000th state of the game without computing the 299,999th, the games run the same every time given they have the same starting state. Fractals are interesting and pretty, but this stuff is kind of more fascinating.

And who knows? Perhaps our brains are binary, but have a different logic setup than modern computers. We are clearly set up different than computers, though, there are many problems that we deal with daily that computers can't, etc. etc.