4 ms·
"Fuzzy X theory" are all crank theories. Why? Because they're trying to find a solution to the sorites paradox, and if it were as simple as some new system/math
by Konohamaru 6y ago
"Fuzzy X theory" are all crank theories. Why? Because they're trying to find a solution to the sorites paradox, and if it were as simple as some new system/mathematics/framework, then there would no longer be a sorites paradox and philosophers would say "whew, job done!" and cite the inventor alongside Aquinas or Aristotle as the three greatest philosophers who ever lived.
But despite the hundreds of fuzzy groupings/fuzzy set theory/whatever, that never happened, has it?
- sago 6y agoWeird. > Because they're trying to find a solution to the sorites paradox, Exactly and explicitly the opposite! Why assume that dynamics are crisp if 'individual' isn't?
- Konohamaru 6y agoIf someone has a fuzzy logic that definitively answers questions such as "what is the boundary between an individual and a system?" then he or she did the same thing Newton and Leibniz did with Xeno's paradoxes, and he or she would go down in history as both the greatest philosopher and a mathematician equal to Leibniz. But that doesn't happen to these guys and gals who work on fuzzy logic, does it?
- sago 6y ago> If someone has a fuzzy logic that definitively answers questions such as "what is the boundary between an individual and a system?" Ah, I see. That was our disconnect. That's the opposite of the idea. The logic is just to abandon a discrete boundary (physics does this in many cases). I think my use of 'fuzzy' might have sparked a different debate. Not one I find convincing (if Science then Philosophy, not Philosophy ∴ not Science ? um...) but I don't much rate 'fuzzy logic' for mathematical reasons. That's another rabbit hole! Thanks for clarifying.