This is an insightful reply I haven’t really thought of the Holy Trinity in terms of three valued logic :)
I value this propagation of Neutrosophy into mathematics for two main things, one - the new type of logic itself, perhaps unifying other logics and perhaps being more workable, I’m not sure if Neutrosophy is the best unifier there may be other forms yet to be investigated. Two – the fact that it is propagating. I’m using “propagating” to describe how the mathematics itself is being refactored by Smarandache and other people working with Neutrosophy, quite skillfully I might add. It shows that the giant knowledge structure of mathematics is open for adaptation. I see Neutrosophy as being a potential tool of intelligent agents verses like you say, finding those agents in Neutrosophy. Example – I’m focused lately on modelling issues. Internal mathematical modelling representations of systems by intelligent agents. Neutrosophy offers tools that might make some things easier and more efficient. Model Checking for example, and emergence of models of systems internally where they are built with uncertainty in the components, as are derivations of models from those models – think of it as having multidimensional rheostats on the models where you can twiddle the knobs and watch how the behavior changes as uncertainty is adjusted guiding their formation. I don’t see it being in the core cognition… though I don’t know perhaps that’s what’s missing in my internal model of cognition. Our internal representations of cognition have uncertainty and contradictions. What really comes first? John From: Anastasios Tsiolakidis [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 5:27 PM To: AGI <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [agi] Everything is not (t, i, f) = (1, 0, 0) On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 10:40 AM, John Rose <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Wissner-Gross Causal Entropic Force The name Neutrosophy is an obvious wink at theosophy, anthroposophy and so on. I am not aware of any other "insistence" on tri-alectics before Gurdjieff's "triamazikamno" about 100 years ago (the whole Jesus trinity thing does not correspond to trialectics because already with Jesus alone you can achieve everything :) ) and derivative philosophical work, and, despite my overall appreciation of G's work I never very much got the various explications, which I found even weaker than standard di-alectics, which also never impressed me as much as it impressed Marx for example. Of course as a mathematical construct you can and you will say whatever you want, but undeniably Modernity is a place where Dynamics is king, a bit like Yoda's "Do or do not, there is no try*. Rather than doing any axiomatic philosophy we seem to be in an endless calculation race on whether we can catch the bus, save enough for the Barbados trip and buy enough storage before next year's budget becomes effective. It is no secret that my own working assumption is the duality Matter-Agency. Obviously it is counterproductive to debate the two "extremes", namely that there is no Agency at all, or that all matter is imbibed with Agency, As much as working with matter is tough, calculating protein folding for example, working with agency is tough-errrr because, for the purposes of AGI, you cannot escape matter, and on top of it you have, well, in principle a search of the entire light cone! Obviously Neutrosophy's playground is Agency, the contradictions and uncertainty are the bread and butter of embedded agents that have limited resources and time in order to eliminate the Aristotelian Undesirables. We could call Neutrosophy the algebra of contradictions just like Fuzzy Logic is an algebra of uncertainty. Building fuzzy logic systems is a very reasonable engineering approach when you are stuck with uncertainties for a very long time, and building neutrosophic systems may be reasonable when you are stuck with contradictions for a very long time. But do I really want neutrosophy to become an epistemology of cognition? Do I want to encode the depth of agency, with its pleasures and pains, its arbitrarily many internal states and so on, to tri-ples? No, I don't see it at all, it is a little like putting the cart before the horse, an agent is not only and not first-of-all a bundle of contradictory beliefs, an agent is an entity that is alive, acts and reacts, reproduces etc. Now, is the tri-alectic formulation a path that will lead to interesting mathematical results? Sure, just don't expect to find Intelligent Agents in Neutrosophy if you failed to find them in Boole and Aristotle. AT AGI | <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/248029-82d9122f> | <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Modify Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
