# Re: Superset <=> subset

Ian Goddard (igoddard@erols.com)
Sun, 29 Sep 1996 01:53:47 -0400

At 12:16 PM 9/28/96 +0100, Dr. Rich Artym wrote:

>> There is zero inconsistency here, dichotomy is a constant. I am
>> still waiting for evidence of the identity free from dichotomy.
>
> While you wait, Ian, ...
>
> I hope that you're going to make use of the fruits of fuzzy logic and
> not ignore them just because they are not consistent with your logic. :-)

IAN: I am familiar with fuzzy logic. Working on holistic logic
and realizing that things are never all A or all ~A, I mapped
out a bivalent truth scale and it then occurred to me that I
think this may be what they call "fuzzy logic." I ran out
and got Kosko's book I realized that, "Crap, someone else
already figured this out. D'oh! There goes that nobel
prize." ;^) Of course as it turns out bivalent logics
were around decades ago, but Kosko has been blazing
many new exciting trails.

The reason holistic and multivalent logic overlap to some
degree is that they both allow for the condition in which
A = ~A. That's how I realized the bivalent logic table had
to be scraped, thus a multivalent scale followed logically.

Holistic logic and multivalent logic are different yet harmonious.

What I see is that even as X is 60% A and 40% ~A, it is ALSO
always 50/50, for 60% implies 40% and vice versa. 60% implies
60% to a degree EQUAL to the degree that it implies 40%. Hot
implies hot to a degree equal to the degree that it implies
not-hot. The mutual dependence of A and ~A, is their constant
equality; therefore, multivalent logic is not inconsistent
with holistic logic or vice versa.

Holistic logic is a principle of relational identity, while
multivalent is a high resolution classification. So multivalent
logic is an improved system of classifications, an improved way
of describing categories of things, but it's still just language,
still just human impositions on nature that fit the variant texture
of nature far more effectively than bivalent. Holistic logic on the
other hand tells us how things actually are, not that fuzzy does
not also do this. Obviously fuzzy logic can be demonstrated to be
more utilitarian than I can now demonstrate holistic logic to be.
But the two are connected: fuzzy logic is "soft-Zen," while holistic
logic is "hard-core Zen" in which A always = ~A. Holistic logic
does not deny fuzzy logic, while Aristotelian logic does deny fuzzy.

***********************************************************************
IAN GODDARD <igoddard@erols.com> Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
visit Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
_______________________________________________________________________