Re: [ontolog-forum] Exchange of notes by Zadeh & Suppes

[William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, Indeed,

I learned this fundamental, foundation of science principle in high school physics.  I was taught it as a **moral** principle, related to 'false precision' as an evil of misleading others, and related to the idea that unless you determined, for your purposes and given your tools, how many digits were significant, you had not fully examined your purposes or understood your tools, and so, acting without awareness, your actions were meaningless.   

This was later reinforced for me by Karl Popper's writing about theories and approximation. 

Wm

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Bruce Schuman <bruceschuman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Yes, an essential point regarding any sort of conceptual description defined
in "a finite number of dimensions" (or factors or aspects or properties or
"columns").  Any model is defined for a purpose, and involves selecting
aspects of something pertinent to that purpose.  So we have to ask, "Why are
THOSE aspects pertinent in this context, and those not?"  It's a matter of
ad hoc choice, and essentially makes the definition stipulative.

"Reality is continuous (in an undefined but potentially infinite number of
dimensions), and conceptual structures are discrete."  At the very least,
there is a round-off error in any conceptual form at "the lowest level of
decimal place" (where bounded digital measurements intersect with undefined
continuity -- as a kind of "analog-to-digital conversion" issue).  And this
is not a minor point (I actually learned this idea many years ago from
"Conceptual Structures").  It should be foundational and basic to any
ontology.  Any conceptual model or system should be built with conscious
awareness of this point...

Bruce Schuman
NETWORK NATION: http://networknation.net
SHARED PURPOSE: http://sharedpurpose.net
INTERSPIRIT: http://interspirit.net
(805) 966-9515, PO Box 23346, Santa Barbara CA 93101

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 11:15 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Exchange of notes by Zadeh & Suppes

Following is a note by Lotfi Zadeh, who copied a note from Pat Suppes.

I would emphasize the point that the "ideal" of exactness is a goal that has
never been and can never be realized in practice.

Perhaps God has an exact, infallible theory of everything.  But the best
that we mortals can hope for is "satisficing" -- to use a term by Herb
Simon.  We can always strive for better approximations, but the assumption
that exactness is possible is misguided and misleading.

All our theories are approximations, which need to be tailored for different
applications.  A satisfactory approximation for one purpose may be totally
unsatisfactory for another -- and vice-versa.

In fact, *every* complex system of any kind uses different theories with
different approximations for different parts, subsystems, and modes of
operation.

Just imagine all the subsystems of an airplane.  Even for airflow, many
different approximations are used for the wings, fuselage, and interiors of
the engines at various speeds, altitudes, and maneuvers.

This point does *not* imply that we must use fuzzy logic and fuzzy
reasoning.  What it does imply is that there is no such thing as an ideal,
one-size-fits-all method of representation and reasoning.

John

_____________________________________________________________________

Dear members of the BISC Group,

Patrick Suppes is an eminent logician and a good friend.  Recently, I sent
him an updated brief report on the impact of fuzzy logic.  I thought you
might be interested in his response. Comments are welcome.

Regards,

Lotfi
_____________________________________________________________________

Dear Lotfi,  Great to hear from you.  I think you are right about the
continuing, indeed growing, popularity of fuzzy logic with applications to
many areas of thought.  It seems to me it is in fact a good predecessor of
the current recognition that most theories will fit data only approximately.
The ideal of science as being exact is a mistake.

Best regards,

Pat

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (01)