Fuzzy logic

[chabibi]

linky (http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2099851)

My understanding is that with fuzzy logic, statements are no longer broken down in to logical or illogical, but can be partly logical mostly logical etc… It seems to me that this could be used by theists to prove certain contradictions between the bible and conventional science as being only partly illogical. For example if the bible records the earth as being 6000 years old and the earth is in fact 6 billion years old. Assuming the bible records a year as 100 000 revolutions of the earth around the sun then the statement is mostly logical and therefore there is almost no contradiction.

[TomCollins]

If you assume up means down, left means right, of course nothing is ever false.

[chabibi]

i think you are missing the point. the idea is that things are not broken down in to true and false but can have many degrees in the middle.

[nate1729]

You're off-base here. Fuzzy logic is still precise; some confusion arises from the fact that "fuzzy logic" has become a colloquialism meaning "illogic."

I can assure you that fuzzy logic (in the technical sense used in the article) does not mean "hey, let's fudge some assumptions so that we can jam these statements together."

By the way, I'd recommend learning a little about fuzzy logic. Very interesting stuff.

I actually haven't studied fuzzy logic, but I'd guess this is the explanation for the example used in the article:

Question: Statement P, "This statement is false," has what truth value?

Let t = the truth value of P. Note that t also equals the truth value of ~P, which is 1 - t. So t = 1 - t, so t = .5

[nate1729]

See my post below about this having essentially nothing to do with what you think it does; also note that most Bible-following folk would be very unhappy with the idea that the statement "Jesus died for our sins" is 72% true.

[David Sklansky]

The best thing about fuzzy logic is that it was invented by the father of one of the few authors of a non fallacious poker book.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
i think you are missing the point. the idea is that things are not broken down in to true and false but can have many degrees in the middle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not missing your point. Either the earth is 6000 years old or it is not. It can't be both. Illogic is not fuzzy logic.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not missing your point. Either the earth is 6000 years old or it is not. It can't be both. Illogic is not fuzzy logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the earth was created old. For example, the bible says Adam was created as a man who would've taken something like 20 years to naturally age. So at Adam's creation, the world was apparently about 20 years old. Maybe god created the earth to appear like it was old, when in fact the earth was only created 6,000 years ago.

My only point is that these issues usually aren't as simple as they apparently seem.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

certain contradictions between the bible and conventional science


[/ QUOTE ]

I've asked Sklansky this and he hasn't answered yet. What contradictions?

[ QUOTE ]

For example if the bible records the earth as being 6000 years old


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible never says this. Even if it did, Zygote's answer has merit. No one can prove the age of the earth as certain unprovable assumptions are required. I personally believe the earth is much older than 6,000 years, and it could well be the 5 billion I believe science now assigns. But it could be much younger. The Bible doesn't state an age.

[snowden719]

This seems rather off to me, as it seems as if we could also say that both P and ~P have a truth value of 1 or 0 and that then the value or P and ~P have equivilant truth value. It also seems to be assuming that the statement "this sentence is false" has a discernable truth value to begin with. Either way, it seems unclear what it means for something to be half truth, can someone give an example of something that would be mostly true that would be a liar's paradox? Although the idea is theoretically interesting, it seems that it's just grasping at straws to try and explain liar's paradoxes.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible never says this. Even if it did, Zygote's answer has merit. No one can prove the age of the earth as certain unprovable assumptions are required. I personally believe the earth is much older than 6,000 years, and it could well be the 5 billion I believe science now assigns. But it could be much younger. The Bible doesn't state an age.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true that the Bible never stats how old the earth is. I have noticed in this forum and in general public that people have the conception that the Bible says the earth is a certain age and similar thinking that the scientific community stats based on their evidence the earth is much older (5 billion or so years, ballpark figure). Therefore in general some people are mislead into the thinking that Bible is "wrong" when it comes accurately detailing the age of earth. This thinking is wrong; to my understanding the Biblical sources detail the creation of earth in the order that the earth was created before "day and night." Hence in theory the time before "day and night" was created cannot be translated into a hourly/weekly/monthly/yearly structure. There is no mention even of the earth even rotating or revolving around the sun. This time frame prior to the creation of day and night could basically be any amount, in terms of years.


Sorry if some of this has been posted/discussed in this forum before, I am not too familiar with all the topics discussed in this forum. Also if this creates any confusion in terms to other discussions by OP in terms of fuzzy logic. I think people have been mislead to some generalization that there is in fact some sort of contradiction between science and biblical information.

Taken mislead information and applying it to other areas of discuses can cause even more confusion.

[David Sklansky]

"to my understanding the Biblical sources detail the creation of earth in the order that the earth was created before "day and night." "

Oh Okay. The Bible doesn't assert the ridiculous assertion that the earth is 6000 years old. Sorry. But it does say the earth was created before it revolved around the sun which is almost as ridiculous.

[Wes ManTooth]

""Oh Okay. The Bible doesn't assert the ridiculous assertion that the earth is 6000 years old. Sorry.""

hmmmm, yeah

""But it does say the earth was created before it revolved around the sun which is almost as ridiculous. ""

Doesn't say either, could it be created at the same time?... without our modern time structure appling to this. The point, determining an age in relation to the frame of the creation of earth is rather diffucult to establish from Biblical sources. So concluding the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old is misleading.


Neither what Biblical sources and the scientific community stat about the earth’s age are not "ridiculous", but to completely assume that they are completely both contradicting is.

[David Sklansky]

"Neither what Biblical sources and the scientific community stat about"

Though people sometimes talk about the "scientific community" just like it is any other community, it is important to rember that we are talking about most of the smartest people on earth. They start out being much smarter genetically than the average person, and after years of intense study the difference betweeen them and the average person (from the standpoint of who would more likely to be right about subjects that require deductive thought) is as least as large as the difference between an average person and a moderately retarded one.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
"Neither what Biblical sources and the scientific community stat about"

Though people sometimes talk about the "scientific community" just like it is any other community, it is important to rember that we are talking about most of the smartest people on earth. They start out being much smarter genetically than the average person, and after years of intense study the difference betweeen them and the average person (from the standpoint of who would more likely to be right about subjects that require deductive thought) is as least as large as the difference between an average person and a moderately retarded one.

[/ QUOTE ]

So one "could" conclude from your/this "generalization" ... that lets say for "example"... these smartest people in the scientific community are average persons... then everyone else including those involved in studying (theory and religion/historical studies) would be ... at BEST moderately retarded.

Is there a range difference between average person and likw retarded one for people within the theological group and the scientific group?

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
The best thing about fuzzy logic is that it was invented by the father of one of the few authors of a non fallacious poker book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Norman Zadeh is Lotfi Zadeh's son?

[DTsee]

[ QUOTE ]


So one "could" conclude from your/this "generalization" ... that lets say for "example"... these smartest people in the scientific community are average persons... then everyone else including those involved in studying (theory and religion/historical studies) would be ... at BEST moderately retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are being so irrational, What christian/religious people don't understand is that unlike them science is not irrational, driven by emotions or blind faith. If the bible could be proven through objective science you wouldn't be arguing this point. When emotion begins to control science, everyone loses. You want so badly to believe what you read in the bible and what has been ingrained in you that you ignore facts. your overpowering emotions and blind faith don't stand the test of objective science, and you will never accept that fact.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh Okay. The Bible doesn't assert the ridiculous assertion that the earth is 6000 years old.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why will you never answer a science question. Your constant ridicule without explanation is somewhat suspect.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

it is important to rember that we are talking about most of the smartest people on earth.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aristotle was probably one of the two or three smartest people who had ever lived up to his time.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What christian/religious people don't understand is that unlike them science is not irrational,


[/ QUOTE ]

But it is. See David Hume.

[ QUOTE ]

objective science


[/ QUOTE ]

A myth.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
You are being so irrational, What christian/religious people...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not "religious" nor practice any partical religion.. and how does this pertain to the topic discused? Assuming someone is religious or may not help you understand different views.

[ QUOTE ]

If the bible could be proven through objective science you wouldn't be arguing this point. When emotion begins to control science, everyone loses. You want so badly to believe what you read in the bible and what has been ingrained in you that you ignore facts. your overpowering emotions and blind faith don't stand the test of objective science, and you will never accept that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making broad statements that might involve some other argument to another range of topics but they do not follow with the discussion of persons in the scientific community and the correlation with earth age involving biblical sources. (It helps to read earlier posts). Maybe you are one that has been mislead by simply generalizations. Be open minded, change your mind set to different thinking and possibilities. Being ignorant of different points of view as well historical thinking will not help you understand why you think you are correct on a certain issue.

Ignorance of being open minded is like a tightening vice.

[DTsee]

If you actually believe what the bible says, the only way to interpet it is as the exact translation of the words of God. It is true that the bible never actually states how old the earth is but it gives you a range based on the events recorded. If the bible is the exact word of god the Earth is not more than 10,000 years old. Science completely disagrees with this, anyone who says they believe the bible but they also believe the Earth is more 50,000 years old is a hypocrite.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
the only way to interpet it is as the exact translation of the words of God.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not exactly correct, there have been many translations and versions throughout history as well other reasons (too much to go into)

[ QUOTE ]

It is true that the bible never actually states how old the earth is but it gives you a range based on the events recorded. If the bible is the exact word of god the Earth is not more than 10,000 years old.


[/ QUOTE ]

read my first post in this thread

[ QUOTE ]

Science completely disagrees with this, anyone who says they believe the bible but they also believe the Earth is more 50,000 years old is a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again not true, this has been discussed (others can elaborate if they like to). Again as mentioned earlier, taken mislead information and applying it to other areas of discuses can cause even more confusion.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If the bible is the exact word of god the Earth is not more than 10,000 years old. Science completely disagrees with this, anyone who says they believe the bible but they also believe the Earth is more 50,000 years old is a hypocrite.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hello Mr. Straw Man. Don't stand too close to those flames.

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
linky (http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2099851)

My understanding is that with fuzzy logic, statements are no longer broken down in to logical or illogical, but can be partly logical mostly logical etc… It seems to me that this could be used by theists to prove certain contradictions between the bible and conventional science as being only partly illogical. For example if the bible records the earth as being 6000 years old and the earth is in fact 6 billion years old. Assuming the bible records a year as 100 000 revolutions of the earth around the sun then the statement is mostly logical and therefore there is almost no contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be a wierd type of proof that nobody would really understand, much less accept. Except, perhaps, some fuzzy theoriests, scientists, and maybe a handful of crackpot trekkies.

I studied fuzzy logic as an undergrad in math and it is pretty cool stuff. Ironically, I never knew it could be applied to philosophical arguments. We studied the AI aspect of it, and "fuzzy control systems" (e.g. how to make a smarter toaster or washing machine).

[vulturesrow]

I think you need to carefully review this thread to see how untrue your statement says. It is a very small subset of Christians that believe everything in the Bible must be literally translated. Furthermore the Bible itself says nothing to this effect.