Re: ONT Re: Inquiry Driven Systems
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
> so it's back to what kant sang, and peirce reverbed,
> about the 'good' of a concept being its utility for
> helping us 'reduce a manifold to a unity' (ramtau).
> that is, 'manifold' is another name -- it's names
> are legion -- for a 'state of uncertainty' (sou).
>
> what's all that mean in dynamic and in symbolic terms?
>
> dynamic. good question. we are asked to think of a sou
> as a state of a dynamical system, and thus to consider
> the moment of doubt or the weight of uncertainty of
> our representative inquiring agent as one of the
> state variables that determines its dynamics.
> it's a bit hard to figure how to start here.
It seems to me that first order logic (FOL) does not allow automated agents
to operate in dynamic systems containing SOUs; for in FOL the agents are
always quite sure of (x) whether Fx is True or False. Nor do your truth
tables, previously provided, show states other than those fixed two in which
all things known, are known with only the one strong certainty. Why not add
at least a third state to the body of your tables ... interperte it as
Surprise, or perhaps a state of doubt ? The values of %B% (if we like
fuzzy logic) would then range over the real numbers in the range 0 to 2
...(not 0 to 1). Am I using your symbol %B% correctly here? In other
words, why not use multi vlaued logics ? Would 2 state logic ever be
capable of operating in systems containing SOUs ?
Some mentographs come to mind:
http://robustai.net/mentography/formOnly2.gif
http://robustai.net/mentography/3laws.jpg
http://robustai.net/mentography/lawsOfLogic.gif
http://robustai.net/mentography/3stateLogic.gif
Seth Russell