of 10

Agents Logic | Logic | Truth

9 views
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Description
Logic: a Misleading Concept. A Contradiction Study toward Agent’s Logic Ontology Feng Liu Department of Management Science and Engineering Shaanxi Economics and Trade Institute (South Campus) South Cuihua Road, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710061, P. R. China Florentin Smarandache Department of Mathematics University of New Mexico, Gallup, NM 87301, USA Abstract: The paper presents a fresh new comprehensive ideology on Neutrosophic Logic based on contradiction study in a broad sense: general critics on conve
Tags
Transcript
   Logic: a Misleading Concept.A Contradiction Study toward Agent’s Logic Ontology Feng LiuDepartment of Management Science and EngineeringShaanxi Economics and Trade Institute (South Campus)South Cuihua Road, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710061, P. R. ChinaFlorentin SmarandacheDepartment of MathematicsUniversity of New Mexico, Gallup, NM 87301, USA Abstract: The paper presents a fresh new comprehensive ideology on Neutrosophic Logic basedon contradiction study in a broad sense: general critics on conventional logic by examining the essence of logic, fresh insights on logic definition based on Chinese philosophical survey, and a novel and geneticlogic model as the elementary cell against Von Neumann oriented ones based on this novel definition. Asfor the logic definition, the paper illustrates that logic is rather a tradeoff between different factors thantruth and false abstraction. It is stressed that the kernel of any intelligent system is exactly a contradictionmodel. The paper aims to solve the chaos of logic and exhibit the potential power of neutrosophy: a new branch of scientific philosophy.   Keywords: Contradiction, Neutrosophy, Neutrosophic Logic, Learning, Perception,Multidimensional Logic, Social Intelligence, Illusion, Creativity 2000 MSC : 03B60, 03B42 1. Background Although it is commonly believed that intelligence is a social activity, and it is therefore represented inmultiagent forms, but its kernel, the logic of agents, remains controversial with its static, monolateral or homogeneous forms.This reflects in their behaviors as: our agents appear social in outer forms but autarchic in nature, for this kind of multiagent system can never deal with controversies, critics, conflicts or something withflexibility. Our multiagent system has become a sort of software engineering or system engineering of freshforms, failing to implement our presumed social intelligence.In the long-term exploration, one realizes that the problem takes its root in the misleading definition of logic. Even the simplest logic such as “The earth turns around the sun” and “I’ll visit him if it doesn’t rainand he is in” can lead to ambiguous or contradictory actions of agent (Liu, [2]). Limited to the length, I’ll present in this paper only a framework to launch our discussion, as follows:  Fact: a belief rather than truth  Logic: dependent of situations, not absolute  Logic is negating itself   Logic is only one perspective of learning, not an independent entity  As a part of learning, logic is dynamic  As a part of learning, logic is multilateral  Logic is always partial  Illusion and creativityMany scientists argue about the need to model human intelligence in the general level. The argumentlies in our vague understanding of intelligent system (Liu, [1]). Intelligent system should be, in our opinion, a tradeoff machine in order to adapt to its environment . Then a specific model becomes such a tradeoff  between ideal philosophic model and practical system model, in the hierarchy from philosophic layer down  to a specific application or situation constraint implementation. I’ll show this philosophy in step ward way,as follows. 2. Neutrosophy  Neutrosophy is a new branch of philosophy that studies the srcin, nature, and scope of neutralities, aswell as their interactions with different ideational spectra.It is the base of  neutrosophic logic , a multiple value logic that generalizes the fuzzy logic and deals with paradoxes, contradictions, antitheses, antinomies. Characteristics of this mode of thinking:- proposes new philosophical theses, principles, laws, methods, formulas, movements; - reveals that world is full of indeterminacy; - interprets the uninterpretable; - regards, from many different angles, old concepts, systems: showing that an idea, which is truein a given referential system, may be false in another one, and vice versa; - attempts to make peace in the war of ideas, and to make war in the peaceful ideas; - measures the stability of unstable systems, and instability of stable systems.Let's note by <A> an idea, or proposition, theory, event, concept, entity, by <Non-A> what is not <A>, and by <Anti-A> the opposite of <A>. Also, <Neut-A> means what is neither <A> nor <Anti-A>, i.e.neutrality in between the two extremes. And <A'> a version of <A>.<Non-A> is different from <Anti-A>. Main Principle: Between an idea <A> and its opposite <Anti-A>, there is a continuum-power spectrum of neutralities<Neut-A>. Fundamental Thesis of Neutrosophy: Any idea <A> is T% true, I% indeterminate, and F% false, where T, I, F _ ] - 0, 1 + [.Here ] - 0, 1 + [ is a non-standard unit interval, with  –  0={0- ε , ε is a positive infinitesimal number} and1 + ={1+ ε , ε is a positive infinitesimal number}. Main Laws of Neutrosophy: Let < α > be an attribute, and (T, I, F) _ ] - 0, 1 + [ 3 . Then:- There is a proposition <P> and a referential system {R}, such that <P> is T% < α >, I% indeterminate or <Neut- α >, and F% <Anti- α >.- For any proposition <P>, there is a referential system {R}, such that <P> is T% < α >, I% indeterminate or <Neut- α >, and F% <Anti- α >.- < α > is at some degree <Anti- α >, while <Anti- α > is at some degree < α >. 3. Fact: a Belief rather than Truth We start with an ancient problem based on the following contradiction: ● The sun turns around the earth. ● The earth turns around the sun.Of cause nearly everyone of us would answer: the later is absolute right. Note that this is merely a belief, because in Copernicus’s age the majority believed in the former. Has anyone proved nowadays whether theformer is incorrect? If yes, he must have assumed that the sun is relatively fixed. Unfortunately this is alsohis belief, because none of us has ever proved the absoluteness of his consciousness: when we seesomething, is it really something or just we believe that there is something (we really touch something or we really believe it is something we touched)? Or more specifically, is it an object or just we hold long thissame belief? Do we really exist as in form we see or just we believe so? I have to introduce a heardexperiment to show this point.A blindfold person is told to be experimented with an iron burnt hot. And through a chronic preparation before him, the iron is burnt fervid, and he is told that the iron is gradually moved closer and closer to him.“Yes, I am feeling hotter and hotter, …… really hot, extremely, ……”  The gradual process goes on and on, until suddenly, he is instructed to have his skin burnt.“Oh……”, his skin really burnt.When he opened his eyes, there is nothing but the scorch in him — there is no fire nor iron, butmerely his imagination — it is strong enough to cause the effect.  I experienced another experiment in which four of us were pointing to a carefully set small woodenstool while rotating around it. According our mutual will, the stool turned itself in the same direction weturned!Another fact (shown in a qigong journal quite a number of years ago, the following is based on our memory) shows the same thing:There is a qigong (commonly believed as some mental or physical exercise in order to gather the“energy” from nature, qi (there are such a kind of substance in Chinese medicine which is unseen butreally affects our body), or the concentrative power of will to maintain health from disease, it is not afeasible way to us) expert in China who, through chronic practice, can “brake” a steel saw blade withnothing but his will, and he had been succeeding in it nearly every time, even in many qigong reports.Once he re-showed the same talent to the huge audience with great curiosity. He ordered: “break”, but unexpectedly, the blade remain exact the same as before, and the following tries turned out to bethe same failures. The atmosphere became extremely unfavorable.Fortunately however, the chairman of the qigong report is experienced, and asked the audience tocooperate: more you are confident, more successful the experiment.Magically, the expert broke the blade with a single command.Conclusion:We have to confess from the three experiments that fact is really our belief  — if a single belief is not powerful enough to convince us, the mutual belief, especially of all the human beings, is definitely strongenough to illude ourselves. While this cause-effect goes on and on, we are unconsciously trapped in theinextricable web of deceit designed by ourselves.Only wise man can see through this kind of deceit, e.g., Master Huineng in Chinese Tang dynasty whenhe saw an argument about a pennant aflutter: whether the wind was moving or the pennant. “Neither. What actually moved were your own minds.” (Liu [4], see also Yan Kuanhu [2])Everyone can become wise when understands this cause-effect, which is the basic point of Buddhism(Chin Kung [1])  4. Logic: Dependent of Situations, not Absolute Take the logic 1+1=2 for example. Is it correct? Consider  black+white=?, explosive+fire=?, warm+cold=?, theory+practice=?, and yin+yang = ?Does the idiom “Blind People Touching an Elephant” really refer to blind men and elephant?  Blind People Touching an Elephant, a story from the Mahapra Janaparamita Sutra:The story shows that the same elephant can be interpreted as such different things asturnip, dustpan, pestle, bed, jar and rope by different blind people who touch it in turn. The firstone touches the tusk, the second the ear, the third the foot, the fourth the back, the fifth the belly,and the last the tail. Based on their different beliefs, the same elephant conveys diverse logics .Conclusion:Logic is more a kind of mental behavior than an objective understanding, i.e., it is more a belief rather than truth; this belief is based on “facts” which are also beliefs.This belief is subject to dynamic changes with situations, and more general belief (generalunderstanding) relative to more general situations could be too flexible to grasp (e.g., Dao=yin+yang),therefore logic suggests varying explanations based on particularity of situations.5. Logic is Negating Itself  Logic comes as mental reflection and leads to new reflection. So, it is not the problem of logic (validity)but the ways we reflect it , otherwise it would become the Chinese room experiment.    J. R. Searle shows this “Chinese room problem” in his paper “Minds, brains and programs”:  We set an Englishman which does not know Chinese, in a closed room, with many symbols of the Chinese language, and a book of instructions in English of how to manipulate the symbolswhen a set of symbols (instructions) is given. So, Chinese scientists will give him instructions inChinese, and the Englishman will manipulate symbols in Chinese, and he will give a correctanswer in Chinese. But he is not conscious of what he did. We suppose that a machine behaves in a similar way: it might give correct answers, but it is not conscious of what it is doing.Another argument on validity of logic is based on a Chinese idiom: Cutting a Mark on the Boatside toRetrieve a Sword (Young):Once, a man of the State of Chu (ancient China) took a boat to cross a river. It so happenedthat his sword slipped off and fell into the water. Immediately he cut a mark on the side of the boat and assured himself: “This is where I have dropped my sword.”By and by the boat came to the destination and stopped. The man plunged into the stream atthe point indicated by the incised mark trying to retrieve the lost sword.The boat has moved on, but not the sword. To recover his sword this way — the man is indeedmuddle-headed .This prompts us to doubt whether logic is always applicable to other circumstances as we knowsituation is subjective to constant change. It can be successful in closed systems where every state is welldefined, but how about open ones?Daodejing (Wang Bi, Guo Xiang) begins with: “Dao, daoable, but not the normal dao.” Referring to thenatural law, we can say it is dao, but it doesn’t mean what we say. Whenever we mention it, it is beyond thesrcinal sense.In Daodejing the creator of everything is defined as dao: like a mother that bears things with shape andform. But what/who is dao? It is just unimaginable, because whenever we imagine it, our imagination cannever be it (we can never completely describe it: more we describe it, more wrong we are). Daoismillustrates the srcin of everything as such a form that doesn’t show in any form we can perceive. Whatever we can perceive is merely the created forms, rather than its genuine nature, as if we know people by their outer looks rather than by their inner intentions. We are too far from understanding the nature. Daodejing suggests that logic in the most srcinal extremity is shapeless in nature: it is unbodied,invisible, inexpressible, or even intangible. ● We frequently have such a feeling in learning English as a foreign language that there is no fixedmeaning but an intangible impression or feeling to a word: the meaning varies with situations,contexts or even ages so that we can never assure our comprehension. In fact, it is due to theunbridled usage in logic made by people of different ages and districts — there is alwayscreativity implied in the word so that we can rely on nothing more than our own creativity. ● Wherever there is logic, there is also the corresponding comprehensive understanding to logic:also based on our creativity relative to the different existences of human beings. Due to thediversity of comprehension, interpretation and creativity to the same logic, there are varyingversions of perception (or conception) to the same logic.Whenever we say “it is” by logic, we are subjective — how can we assure our objectiveness? We mayhave developed it from some strictly limited domain under constrained conditions, or it is merely ahaphazard, because we can only observe limited cases in our limited lives. How can we convey the logic tothose with different backgrounds, even with the slightest difference? How can we then assure thedeterminacy of its truthness? Is that the reason that majority of people hold it (e.g., Darwin’s evolutiontheory and the functional difference between left and right brain —  both are controversial in fact)? In factnone of the logics can be proved, even of we exist or not (Gershenson).There is no truth and false actually: there is because the outcome has to meet someone’s desire — theyare merely the attributes of a tradeoff. One false dead can be true in another perspective, e.g., eating muchis good, because of the excellent taste and nourishment, but it is also bad when he gets weighted. Neutrosophy (Smarandache) shows that a true proposition to one referential system can be false to another.Conclusion:Validity of logic depends on the way we reflect it, not logic itself. Logic never proves itself. Logic is a matter of tradeoff (balance) between contradictory factors. There seems no absolutecorrectness or falseness independent of environment. There is dao, but not the kind we mentioned, accordingly, there is logic but not what we specified .
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks