Science Forums 2

[HydrogenBond]

If you reason with empirical evidence, one is not not dealing with premises, which are sharp points. Rather one is dealing with premises that are fuzzy balls. Logic connects the premises, in both cases, with fuzzy balls offering more subjective flexibility.

For example, if we have two points, there is only one logic line that can connect two sharp points. If we have two fuzzy balls, there are many lines of reasoning that can connect them. One can start at the bottom of the first ball and connected to the top of the second ball. This particular line of reasoning will have a different angle than the rational line that connects two sharp points. This range of logical angles is implicit of subjectivity that is added to reasoning, relative to the ideal world of a singular line between point premises. There is uncertainty in the fuzzy ball, making it ripe for subjectivity.

Let me give a practical example. During a lightning storm, one is at risk of getting struck by lightning. This is a fuzzy ball premise, that can be used for further reasoning, since there is no data that suggest everyone who goes outside during a lightning storm gets struck. However, somewhere in that fuzzy ball premise there are real examples. But we don't know where in the fuzzy ball these examples will be today. So we have to pick somewhere to begin reasoning.

Using logic, we can start anywhere in the ball, even in places where we won't get struck in reality, but will still logically infer the need to stay indoors. There will usually be fear involved in the subjective angle of risk. Fear creates two subjective choices; fight or flight. This helps, since anything that touches the ball will generate fear to make the fuzzy ball appear to be tighter.

What is interesting, instead using the subjectivity within risk/fear for fuzzy ball reasoning, what would happen if we induced the desire emotion, as the fuel for the subjective angles between fuzzy ball premises. Whereas fear narrows the mind to two basic choices, desire is promiscuous, compulsive, fickle and even faithful. What this does is open up more angles.

I enjoy fuzzy ball logic as much as anyone else, because it is very flexible and can get one all pumped up with subjectivity. Logically, if one can't do anything about fuzzy premise, since many are good empirical science, one can still approximate the line through the fuzzy ball centers using subjective angle generation and then taking an average of all the possible angles in fuzzy ball reasoning. That is why I generate so many angles, but don't camp out too long at any one angle. I try to touch the entire fuzzy ball with the hope I can see the average line down the center.

Another trick for logical optimization is to avoid fear, as the subjective background, when reasoning with fuzzy premises. Fear will narrow the mind down because of subjective consequences, making it harder to get a good average, since the logical angles allowed will be weighted too heavy one way.

One needs to use desire, instead of fear, because desire will go where fear will not go. That is why in culture money, prestige, recognition, etc. are all based on desire, setting the background emotional ambiance for people and scientists, to help avoid the narrowing effect of fear so they can strike out on another angle. This gives more angles to take an average. We may not be able to change some of the fuzzy premises of science, since many things have to be done empirically. But we can optimize logical conclusions using these fuzzy ball premises. One has to understand the nature of subjective angles, the type of emotion used especially between fear and desire, and try to take an average.