Fuzzy logic is an approach to computing based on "degrees of truth" rather than the usual "true or false" (1 or 0) Boolean logic on which the modern computer is based. It is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1 both inclusive.
SUMMARY KEYWORDS
reality, true, logic, people, thinking, idea, language, point, universe, objective reality, humans, thought, fuzzy, experiment, paradox, nature, question, probability, false, thoughts
SPEAKERS
Pouya LJ, Govind, Deep
Pouya LJ 00:16
Hey guys, how's it going?
Govind 00:19
Nice, amazing. Toronto. Good weather.
00:23
Yeah, no, it's surprisingly hot. Yeah.
Pouya LJ 00:29
So it's been a while, since we talked. Let's see each of you. What's up with you. Let's start with you guff?
Govind 00:39
Well, for those that don't know, I have a startup called Virtual systems that focuses on network security using information theory, principles, and networking, to have a flat internet that's not built on data centers where data privacy can be controlled by the user, as opposed to any corporate corporation that is controlling your data, which is the case these days. So that's a little bit of my background. I like a lot of things like mathematics, philosophy, computer science, and software development.
Pouya LJ 01:11
Well, that's for philosophy. All right, I bet you the What's up? What's up with you?
Deep 01:18
Um, yes. First of all, I just want to say that just sounds like the life of a polymath, so I can really appreciate that right on COVID. Yeah, so I similar to COVID. I also run my own startup, we do quantum computing. Instead, we are looking to use quantum computers to accelerate the materials discovery timeline. Right. So right now we do a lot of things that are mostly trial and error based plus some compute, for doing materials discovery, let's say you want to discover a new cathode or new electrode material, right? How are you going to do that? We want to automate that process and and speed it up by thousands if not millions. That's our goal. It's pretty ambitious, but that's what we do you everyday, or try to do. Uh huh. Yeah. So that's what I've been up to.
Pouya LJ 02:11
Yeah. Thanks. That's amazing. Are you in Toronto?
Deep 02:14
Yes. Good.
Pouya LJ 02:15
Good. You're enjoying this weather?
Deep 02:17
Totally. Yeah. So nice. weather wise will enjoy it. Well, us.
Pouya LJ 02:21
Yeah. Well, that's true. That's going on soon. Probably next week. Still not that bad? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Anyways, so today, we are tackling a subject that I am very inept in? I have no idea. I mean, I know abstractly what it is, but I don't have any readings on it. I think you guys are more educated on this than me. But let's see how it goes. So we're talking about a bunch of different stuff. Actually, it's not one thing, but it's centered at logic propositions. And quantifiers. Do you want it? So this was the pathway was introduced to this conversation was introduced by golf? Do you want to start it off yourself?
Govind 03:06
Sure. Um, so when we think about logic, what comes to mind? Generally, it's things like, debate, you know, things that logic is associated with, or things like debate, and truth and false, maybe people who are in software development or would think of code. You know, there there are so many of these, these these concepts that come to your mind when you think of the word logic. You know, what, maybe maybe you guys can chime in with like, premium fallacy. When I say the word logic, one of the one of the things you think about,
Pouya LJ 03:35
no, I think I mean, I guess it depends on their perspective, as you were saying, but I think what you're saying it makes sense. I think, generally, people think about logic as reasoning, like step by step thinking. Thinking about, like, it depends, if you're asking a philosopher is a little bit different than a mathematician than a software, regular person going about their lives, not thinking about these things. But I think that just remains for most people.
Govind 04:05
Sure, what am I?
Deep 04:07
Yeah, when I think of logic, I think of two things, the more intuitive idea of logic, which is what I think every human has, right? We like to all believe that we're logical beings, right? What does that mean? We all know that mean something when I say it, but what does so I think, the intuitive idea that humans are logical insofar as they have a set of consistent rules that you can codify that have some sort of basis, right, you can derive next set of actions based on a set of let's say, axiom true principles, right. And they're logical in nature. For example, humans get hungry where you're cutting off I don't is that does that me or?
Govind 04:46
Oh, I can I can hear him fine. I think
Pouya LJ 04:48
that's me.
Deep 04:50
Do you want me to restart for you?
Pouya LJ 04:53
Okay, now that's better. Sorry. Okay. Sure. That's fine. Continue. Sorry.
Deep 04:56
Sure. So I was just saying that like from from the preset preset Something that's logical, or I would consider as logical is the idea of hunger, right? Like when a human is hungry? What would be logical next is that they're going to try to get food. Right? To me that's logical. And that and so that's an intuitive logic or system of systems are sets of logics that we just know from by nature. Then I think of the logic, when when when Govan asked me, What do I think when you know about logic, right? Like what comes to mind? Or how would I define it and whatnot. The second one is the formal, abstract idea of logic that we humans have that I think that maybe other creatures don't have. And and that's the mathematical ability or the mathematical perspective of logic, where you can look at, you can create systems like Boolean logic, you can generalize Boolean logic and look at how you can construct quantum computations in Universal computations. And propositional logic is totally different than what I just talked about. And so that's all these things are abstract logics, and it's different than the intuitive logic, sometimes.
Govind 06:07
Yeah, yeah. No, that's, that's a great way of like, you know, describing the entire breadth of what logic? Thanks. Well, I think it comes down to the concept of truth and false, right, because you have to start with things you know, are true. And then you string these things that are true in certain ways that allows you to create certain implications, right? You, you, you start with a few facts, like, as a classic one, all men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal, right? You know, you have these propositions you have you start with these facts, and then you put them together using some inference rules. But what I wanted to discuss in today's topic, as today's topic is this concept of truth and false itself. We really, as humans, we take truth and false kind of for granted as a discrete binary thing, right? You have something that's true, and it's not true, it's false. But is that really the case? And to further grounded discussion, I have a few quotes from this book. It's called fuzzy thinking. And it has it really explores this concept of how truth can be continuous or fuzzy, right? It's it's not it's not truth. It's like an on off switch. But it's actually like, on and goes all the way to off with like, several, maybe infinite steps in the way. So one quote I really like is, there was a mistake, and everyone in science seemed to make it. They said that all things were true or false. They were not always sure which things were true and which were false. But they were sure that all things were either true or false. So I thought that that is a really cool quote, because it points out this fact that this is really taken for granted, we don't really think about, you know, like, What is it? What does it mean for something to be true or false. And another quote, I think, would be interesting not to make this all the quotes I made this last one is a quote from Albert Einstein. So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they're not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Because, I mean, if you say something is true or false, the universe does not give a shit, you know, universe is going to do whatever it's doing. And we're just we're just creating these models where we say, Okay, these things are true, these things are false. And, and we're going to construct our models of reality based on it. But these models of reality are pretty much mental experiments that we perform across humans right? Now, it just so happens that it happens to be incredibly good at modeling reality, to the point where people can get confused and say that reality works based on the principles that we create, and the facts that we create, the things that we assign as true or false is what is allowing reality to work the way it is. But it's it's always important to know that there's this detachment between what's reality and what's what's, you know, our our collective, our thought experiment, which is, you can call it mathematics, philosophy, whatever any anything that we have, when we come together, we have discussions, even discussions like what we're having right now. They're, they're just, like, there's a separation from this and reality. And this is kind of exemplified by what's known as the law of the excluded middle in, in logic. So where if you have a proposition a, let's say, let's just call it P let's let's work in the realm of the abstracts, if you have a proposition p p could be something like, this is a fruit or a gob is a person, you know, things like that things, something that I can assign a truth value to true or false. So the law of the excluded middle is that for all propositions P, P, or not B, that is something can either be true or not true. Now, this this sounds like stupid, simple, right? It sounds kind of like okay, sure, something can either be true or false. But now, what's crazy is that several mathematicians in over the 20th century, were actually pushing back against including this principle and logic, they were saying, No, I want to construct a mathematics which doesn't have p or not p that is, p or not P is actually not true. According to these people. They were called the intuitionists. And this cause Like a massive, massive debate back in the 20th century. But I'll pause here and I'll get some comments from you guys like what do you think such a mathematics could actually look like?
10:11
So
Deep 10:12
the first thing that comes to mind is the idea of structural realism. Structural realism basically posits that whatever scientific and mathematical understanding that we get of the universe, it does not necessarily reflect on the true structure and nature of the universe, right? So, if you have a quote, of creations that describe gravity at the macroscopic scale, that does not mean that those equations are the true structure and nature of reality. And that's important because when we're, as you sort of alluded to Govan, like when we define something to be true or false, nature doesn't give a shit. Right, so to speak. And that's like, like, interesting enough, there's a philosophical question right there. Because what if it happens that structural realism is false. And ironically, there is some sort of mathematical truism, at least in the physics perspective, that we can define, and that it is actually a true reflection of reality. It is objectively the truth. Right? Like, we may not, it may actually be possible, who knows? So there and because we haven't actually answered that, you know, what I mean, that that philosophical idea yet, whether structural realism, is true or not, is very hard to it. Yeah, extend or resolve the conflicts that have occurred in the 20th century from logic? Because this is just an extension of that. What do you think?
Govind 11:50
Um, well, I think this this, this time in history was very interesting, you know, because, well, maybe, like, some historical context would be that, you know, this is the first time you have like, several extremely smart people from across the world coming together and creating a global, you know, like, hey, let's tackle the biggest questions in, in humanity, like any point in your thinking, right? So like, and I think this kind of resulted in probability, right? probability is something that emerged from the 20th century, I mean, some could argue the roots extend way back, but you know, like the roots for everything, then way back. But the reason I bring up probability in this in this argument is like, as, as humans now in the 21st century, we, our process of science is so fundamentally grounded in probability, right? Like, to the point where our models of reality are the closest models of reality, we have use probability necessarily, right? Think of all the discussions you've had with your friends regarding COVID, or all these other things. Most people tend to make arguments related to probability and case fatality rates, you know, these kind of like, almost baseball statistics, right? Like I say, baseball statistics, just to kind of ground that and make it more like, you know, you see where I'm going with this, right? It's just that probability has created this kind of way that of making seen things our model seems so real, that you can actually see them and you can actually see their measure their impact on them. Right, this in fact, in mathematics, this the, let's call it the backbone of probability is called measure theory. Right. And I think this kind of lends itself to, well, some of the stuff you're working on, right, the quantum models of reality. So I think I think structural realism is something that is extremely effective, because it's, it's, it works on observations of reality, behind the scenes, and it actually kind of gets there. I mean, I'm using structural realism, maybe I'm, I'm conflating it with some mathematical context that are quantitation that it does not come with out of the box. I hope, I hope my point is clear.
Deep 13:51
Yeah, I understand your point completely. Um, quia. What do you think about this idea of an objective truth in nature? Um, do you think that it actually exists? And should we possess it? logic around that idea? Or the, or the rejection of the idea? Yeah. How important should that rule be?
Pouya LJ 14:12
Um, that's a very good question. Actually, I have started this long project, which is in the background for my own sake, I actually came up thought of this question a while back. I mean, everybody thought of thinks about these things, but more seriously started thinking about this insert. Getting onto some avenue to, you know, think about Yes. Is there an objective reality? And then that's literally the question to ask myself that started me on this journey. And you know, I I talk to some people from different walks of life, from psychology to philosophy to physics and what have you, some people who are at the top of their fields. I didn't. I mean, I did ask them this question, which is not the point. But from there our conversation, my conversation with them. What I got is that, no, from, from, from the real essence of the question, like the deepest sense of the question. And what I gather from all of those conversation conversations is that, again, we not the way we understand our world, our universe, maybe there is maybe there is a formalism that will get us there. But at least not with anything we have this, you know, far we've gotten discovery in science and philosophy thought. So. I, I think ultimately there is that's just a guesswork, obviously, like hypothesizing, but not in the sense that. So, let me put it this way. So for example, when GM Govan was saying that there's a spectrum of truth, I think that is, that is, that is true, until you get to the, to the resolution to the, to the, to the pixel of reality, essentially, at some point, it has to be one or the other. But we didn't get there yet. So that's my sense of it. That's my sense is that yes, it will eventually be some sort of objectiveness in reality, but it requires a better understanding of that reality that the fundamental laws of our universe, and that is not just gravity, gravity is, for example, gravity is emergent, from my perspective, and that that sense?
Govind 16:49
Well, I think you're gonna be happy, because initially, you wanted this discussion to be more about the nature of reality. And I think it's creeping into there. So I'll talk a little bit about the nature of reality as examined by Western philosophers. So there's a Descartes, notably, in the in the history of Western philosophy in like, let's say, the early modern period, which is like on 1600s, to like present day, or 1600 to 1800, is about the early modern period, we had these different movements, we started with rationalism, which is that, you know, like, we just, we just say things like, create these elaborate logical models. And then, and then we, we kind of examine, we use this as descriptions of reality. And then this kind of God rejects. And notably, Rene Descartes was kind of like a huge figure in this movement, because he said things like, the mind is its own soft, separate substance. And to tie that back to this discussion, what I was saying earlier about the realm of, of imaginary, thought experiments that we work with, in different fields like mathematics, computer science, and so on. He thought that it was its own separate universe that was completely detached from our, the universe that we live in. And he, I mean, these are the things he's saying, right? Like, I mean, he could be right, he could be wrong, but like, he's like, he's using logic as a means to tie together his his arguments. But at the end of the day, these are just things he's saying. And he's just using logic to create an elaborate story, an elaborate logical model. And this is the criticism that the next movement kind of gave to the rationalists. They were called the empiricist. People like David Hume, and I think mill or Locke, john Locke was in there. But they were like, hey, you're just saying things, you know, you're just you're just creating, you're just like, this is basically a story that I'm reading. And you're just like, Well, God is this and God is that. Savage. Exactly. And they're like David Hume, one of his famous philosophical quotes is like, you know, you can, you can't say for sure that the sun is gonna rise tomorrow, we see it rise every day. And we take it for granted, we have these explanations for it. But at the end of the day, these are just explanations, you know, I mean, at this point, they hadn't invented spacecraft and all that stuff yet, you know, they couldn't just go up there and see the sun.
Deep 19:09
Well, even then, like it did, there's still a philosophical point to that, like, even then we may not, despite everything we know, today, you know, I mean, the sun might not rise like there's
Govind 19:21
exactly that's, that's, that's
Deep 19:22
apparently physical reasons. I'm not even saying like magical reasons. But yeah,
Govind 19:26
- So so they completely dismiss these, the rationalist arguments using this, it's like, if I don't see it, you know, it doesn't exist. So, you know, show me the proof, show me the reality of things. Got it. Um, and eventually, this kind of got resolved somewhat by Kant, Emmanuel Kant, who came in the, I believe, late 1700s, early 1800s. And he, he, he's like, Okay, guys, how do we resolve this? Because there's clearly some value in using logic to describe reality. And there's definitely value in talking about things that we can see and perceive and sense right. So his Way of reconciling this was to say that was to bring in the human aspect of things like how we perceive things. And he thought that that played an important role. In fact, what we call space time, were intuitions, he described them as intuitions. So humans have an intuition of space and an intuition of time, which is what allows us to perceive these things in reality. To make that more clear, he's he's telling the Emperor says, Hey, the things that you think you perceive, so clearly, maybe they're not that clear, you know, you are trapped behind your veil of perception at the end of the day. And again, like this is all to talk about the objective nature of reality, right? As humans, we can't help but be stuck behind the fact that everything we're perceiving is just what we're perceiving. There's another quote from Descartes, you know, it's, I think, therefore I am. It's one of like, the most famous quotes from philosophy, I think. But it's, it's basically that, for him thinking was such a rational endeavor, right? He thinks that just because he has this stuff running on in his head, like this voice that goes like, blah, blah, blah, and in his head, that's, that's why he knows for real, that He exists, like, no matter what, I have this thing that allows me to, like, perceive and like, you know, like, I don't know, if you guys are real, I don't know, my computer's I know, there's something going on here. You know, that's kind of his point there. And Kant was saying, you know, there's a human element of things you just can't strip away from, from anything real, right. So that's a little bit of a background in this in, well, let's say Western philosophical thinking about this, this this topic.
Deep 21:27
That's awesome. Um, and, you know, a lot of its circles, it's all circling and tying back in to itself in an interesting way. And here's what I mean by that. So, to your point about how deep you know, probability is in quantum mechanics, right? It plays a huge role, a fundamental role. For literally since the birth of it, you know, physicists both on the quantum computing and sorry, quantum physics side of things, and the classical physics side of things, believed that there should be some sort of a clear description of the wavefunction and information that we can eventually have access to and predict perfectly. So like, just, there's there was this idea that we'll eventually be able to predict the exact nature of the collapse, the wave function will know when it will collapse, and into what outcome it will collapse, rather than just knowing the probability. And you know, fast forward 100 years later, we've made essentially zero progress in making that stochastic process any less stochastic to us. And so it's really like sad react Sony, right? Like for the people who, who believe like, go when you and I've had tons of discussions about determinism and whether the universe is and Buddha unites was actually all three of us. And so quantum mechanics quickly touches on that. And then there's the objective reality question. There's the witness friend paradox. experiments, right that were recently conducted, again, two years ago, where you had two different labs instead, posing as a weakness friend, basically, it's a witness paradox is a paradox that was created in the 60s it was proposed by the famous physicist Wagner, and essentially, what he said was that if there are given the fact that the wavefunction encodes the all the possible measurables and observables, for a given observer, then the wavefunction is going to be different for different observers. And if that's true, then they're going to have eventually conflicting facts about the universe. And so he said, that's a paradox, right? And it turns out that it's true that two years ago, in those days, it is insane, because two years ago, we actually ran these quantum physical experiments where we took a well being split using beamsplitters, we essentially used quantum entangled photons. And we've been into two different labs, and you have people, you have what's called witness friends inside the lab, and then Wagner or like the observers outside the lab. And so all four people in this experiment, none of them can observe each other. We're measuring each other's photons directly, they can perform measurements to see if a measurement hasn't done, but they can't. Yeah, so that so if you want to think about it physically, they're splitting at the end of the experiment, one particle that was turned into four quantum entangled pairs, so through Bell state pairs and beamsplitters you really have these so if you want visualize that, so imagine, like I take a ball of physical ball, and I cut it in four pieces, and I give it right to four different people. Here's a weird thing about the huge We're gonna experiment what ended up happening is that Imagine if I asked those four people to look at, if I to record the color of their ball, right, let's say I cut up a red ball. And and I gave a piece to everybody, everybody has a red ball in theory right? v a piece that's red. What ended up happening is that these people, of course, were quantum mechanics, there's one caveat, right? You can expect the ball to change colors, that's fine, you can, you can expect it to change either red or green. So that's let's say, you can measure spin up, spin down totally fine. What and what what we did was, let's say I did this, I took a red ball, I gave it to four of my friends. And then they did measurements, knowing that it'll change red, green, red, green, sometimes. I, it turns out that when they did those measurements, and they all got back to each other, and they looked at their lists, and the measurements that they did on each individual piece themselves, the colors didn't add up. So So I so imagine this, like, imagine if I looked at my list, and I observed red, green, green, red, green, red, and you observe green, green, green, green, green, red. So you were looking at a different piece of the ball. How's that even possible? When I physically split the same objective ball? It's not it's, well, technically you shouldn't have been, but it is like, in fact, what's happening is that literal conflict and objective facts about reality, where you have people who participated in a physical experiment, use the same physical measurement tools and came up with different conflicting facts
Govind 26:31
that is completely wild. Yeah, no, that's physics anymore. You know, this is like something just so beyond anything.
Deep 26:41
Yeah, I mean, it is very edgy. Yeah. See? What we know, dude.
Govind 26:45
Yeah. Oh, my God. That's, that's insane. Everyone reminds me of the banach tarski paradox, right? Like, I mean, these kind of things happen on mathematics, and we're totally fine with it. Right. So the banach tarski paradox is like, imagine you have a sphere, a sphere that's composed of like, let's, let's call them like, an infinite number of droplets that are holding together this fear, right? It's like this basketball. So the banach tarski paradox says that there is a way to separate out, like, just choose all the points, like a whole bunch of these points that are in here, like these droplets, and then you take them out, and then you move them away. And these are just solely choosing the points, while granted infinite number of points, you're telling them to go somewhere else. And using this, you can actually create a perfect clone of the ball, right? You have two different copies of the ball using the exact same number of particles. So you can do all these weird things with infinity in the world of the abstract, you know, where we're fun things happen, and everyone's everyone's happy and dancing all the time. You know, like, yeah, they're like, we're okay with all kinds of crazy things happening. But man, when this spills over into reality, it's like, we all lose our shit. Because, you know, yeah, literally not believing.
Deep 27:54
That's right. That's right.
Pouya LJ 27:57
Yeah, and so, um, so what, what, what do you do, but especially because you're, you're actually very close to these experience. What does that what does that make you feel? What does that? What? What does that? Do you think it means? What does that say about that objective reality, if you will? What is your thought?
Deep 28:17
Yeah, it will, what it tells me is that there's likely some sort of, clearly a multiverse situation going on, where almost it's like, we're maybe that maybe each agent that can be concerned, considered an observer or anything that can be considered capable of measurement, right? We don't know how far that extends. We just don't know those answers. But I believe that everything that can is on some unique multiverse, and we all just have our own timelines intersecting with each other. That's what that told me. It no longer feels like, we share one objective physical space. It's like, you know, I mean, we just have like, the these rays instead. That intersect. So it, I found, frankly, I found it psychologically disturbing when I read the experiment and the results. And I don't think that there's no way around it. It's just but it's fascinating stuff. So yeah,
Pouya LJ 29:17
yeah, no, I, it does make sense. Yeah, what you're saying like, I mean, obviously, there has to be so that to me, either. There's another explanation such as the multiverse situation, or maybe there is no objective reality. Well, in a sense, at the end of the day, if you're living in a multiverse with different set of facts, and you're building all of your rules based on those axioms that you get from FX x, or whatever, a different set of axioms will say. Then, who's to say which universe is the reference universe, or the main universe or truth? So maybe maybe there isn't any objective reality which, which to me, And then that's my whole thing. That was my whole thing about this objective reality. I asked this question going in thinking, yes, there is, and we can't just find it yet. But let's pose the assumption that Yeah, no, there is no objective reality, then to me, it's a little bit more humanistic again, talk, but it just shows me how arrogant we've become of a thing called, you know, science and discovery. And we're just, we're just going forward thinking that we're supposed to know the answer to, to everything, we have to figure it out. And that and that's fine to try. But also I think it this whole phenomena should should give us some notion of Okay, there is there there should be a little bit a bit a degree of humility, in what in what we do as discoverers of this universe, which is, to me the most beautiful parts. Again, I'm like, this is being poetic as a human thing. But that's at the end of the day. That's who we are. And I think I think we should appreciate that part as well. Sorry, I'm just going to close this loop on this poem that I just composed here. But Okay, back to Golf. How does that make you feel? from someone who's a little bit more distant? Personally,
Govind 31:28
I think it's very interesting to use the word pool there because, well, since since this, this discussion has kind of been underpinned by logic and language and all that kind of stuff. There's this philosopher Martin Heidegger, his his entire take was like, we need to kind of escape from the confines of language and the kind of thinking that is inevitable, just because of language being the way it is, right? Because it's like, realistically, we all have our own personal language. It's like, I have my own language. And when I say that, I don't mean like my own version of English, I mean, my own, let's like, composition of thoughts, experiences, feeling senses, right? Like, if I remember, if I smell a perfume from my past, like, I'm gonna have like, these nostalgic experiences and all that stuff, right? And, and that really, that's part of that's a word or like maybe a phrase in like, personal language. And whenever I'm talking, what I'm doing is I'm converting from my, I'm translating from my personal language to English, right? In this case, and then and then you have to, like convert that back to your personal language. And men composition is really hard, like, how do we do it? Given this this context, but Heidegger, his his attempt to improve language, was by positing that we move to poetry as a way of expressing ourselves purely because he thought poetry had this innate ability to capture our personal language, right? Because when we write poetry, it's such a, like, poetry is a hard thing to understand, right? Like, sometimes you read poetry, and I'm like, What the heck is going on? But it's just because it's, it's the poets like attempt to try to bring out their personal language as much as possible, right. And I would argue that most of art is the same process. So I mean, in, and I want to tie this back to like, the point I made earlier about us trying to escape the confines of our own existence, right, like, the the confines of our of our human infrastructure, the way we do that, I think poetry is a very, very cool way of and it's kind of cool that emerged from this discussion as well. That's kind of a case in point.
Pouya LJ 33:23
Yeah. No, I I think so. Yes, I think I understand. So it's the least amount of filters like art, I suppose, like, closest to you as it gets, I suppose. So, so yes, I, and that's what I've been going back and forth a lot. Like I obviously, as somebody who cares about, you know, methodical thinking, logical thinking, and, you know, rationale, reason, etc. That is very valuable, especially if you if we want resolved in this in this world of ours, because at the end of the day, we can get a lot with the our version of you know, reality that we have in this very pocket that we are living in, in the whole the whole universe and in space and time. But going beyond that, I think there there has and that is where I think they kind of, you know, overlap the the field, let's call it science and art, if you will, I don't, I don't like to make huge distinction, like borderline distinction distinctions, generally personally, but I think in an entirety, society does make it very, like black and white distinction between these two, which I think there is a good amount of overlap, and that is, we're
Govind 34:44
talking fuzziness, right, it's all about being fuzzy and accepting it for what it is as opposed to what we want it to be that maybe seems more perfect to us, right? Like these molds seem more perfect to us. But the reality is, nothing is a mold like everything is fuzzy, right? Like I think the example is like such a mind. looming realization of that.
Pouya LJ 35:02
Yeah, no, that's that's true. And what one way one can raise a question. I suppose that what makes us want the I mean, I have I have one answer. But let's let me just pose the question first. What makes us as who we are humans, again, within this infrastructure, once this clarity of binary of, you know, not being fuzzy, but rather completely distinct or True or false? Well, what are your thoughts on that?
Govind 35:35
Well, I remember we actually think I think we did a podcast on this a little bit ago about like the nature of chaos, right? Some people, most people I think, are very averse to chaos, because they like things being simple and easy to understand. Right? What I mean, the more, let's say, foolhardy among us, for lack of a better word, like kind of naturally as gravitated towards chaos, because I think chaos is just such a good description of reality. But the problem is that chaos, by definition is incredibly, incredibly complex, right? So you don't you don't have the simplicity of like, you know, two plus two equals four, right? You're like, what's two? what's plus? What's four? What's the quality?
Pouya LJ 36:14
That sounds like you checked, you just say, yeah, smoke some weed or something? Like what is to man?
Govind 36:23
I thought this was Joe Rogan.
Pouya LJ 36:27
Oh, it could be anyway. No, I think so. Okay, let me go back to how about you do and don't share my thoughts?
Deep 36:38
Yes. So, first of all, it's super interesting about the nature of fuzziness, especially when we think about Zeno's paradox. Because even that is a great example. You know, I still contend that we have not resolved the paradox of why is it that we can make contact with anything, right? Why is it that I'm even touching the floor right now, despite the poly exclusion principle? And, you know, Zeno's paradox, right?
Govind 37:10
xenos paradox.
Deep 37:11
Sure. So So, so xenos paradox. It's really a family of paradoxes. But it all comes down to the fact that, I'll give you an example. Let's say that you want to reach the end of the hallway. And your rule that you impose on yourself is that you're going to have your distance in order to get to the hallway, and you'll have your distance, every single time until you get to the end of the hallway. And so let's say the, you're 10 feet away from the end of the hallway, then the next time the next move you make you're five feet away, then two and a half, then 1.25, and so on and so forth. And until you go to point 000000125, blah, blah, blah, but it'll never be zero, right? It never touches zero. So at no point, will you ever actually reach the end of the hallway. So Zeno's paradox, what basically asks, Why do you never, why do you touch the end of the hallway? Why is it that in real life, we end up making it to the other side, despite the fact that these infinite distances, you know, taking any slice of an infinite still infinite so so he just had all these questions about it. Yeah, spacetime. Very deep questions to the thousands of years ago on so and we still haven't answered them properly. And yeah,
Govind 38:34
well, I have a point about that. But I know if we are you're you're itching to talk about your, your perspective on it. Go ahead. Oh, you're on mute. Oops, sorry.
Pouya LJ 38:45
First of all, I want to say that I, I sent a photo and chat A while ago, and I think I diverted deeps attention to that kind of concept, which was I don't know if you saw the, the the rabbit or whatever it is. It wants to go get a haircut. I'll put this in the show notes, by the way, but it's a half off haircut. Did you guys see that one?
Deep 39:12
Right now? That is funny. Yeah, I'll put this
Pouya LJ 39:16
in the show notes. So that people who are listening to this, they can just find it out. But I know this is exactly what you're talking about. It'll gonna take forever. So yeah, you're right. But why do we actually get that haircut and the half of haircut eventually? No, I think so. First of all, all of these are exactly to my point that there's there's there is probably a sea of things that we just don't know about the nature of our universe, the one that even forget about objective reality, the one that we even perceive. And maybe one can make an argument that the reason with the fatalities of our of our views are the questions that we cannot answer is because of the fact that our realities are not completely overlapping the objective one, and that's where those those are the the edge cases that are actually creating these problems, perhaps. But true. Beyond that, I think there's a, there's a degree of obsession amongst many, many people, most people probably besides besides the ones who are embracing chaos, I suppose as go and was putting it, that we did a good good amount of like humanity essentially once a clear answer to two things and sometimes takes shortcuts through through, you know, ideologies that might not have, you know, rational rationale behind them. Just to get to those answer, why am I here? Why, like, because I have to be tested here to go to heaven, part of the some of the religious ideologies, or, or what is the nature of our unit? Why is the sun come up? I feel a first of all does is going to come up tomorrow or, and then we come up with these answers, and everybody through their own ways try to answer these definitively. And part of that is I think, now it's a little bit of more philosophical questions, I suppose, or answer rather thoughts, I suppose. But I think part of that is because we understand our own mortality by binary, which is the most did the deepest, probably driver of our existence, and that is either we're dead or alive, there's no, I'm half dead. I was like, well, maybe you're sick a little bit, but you're not half dead. So I and there is there's a degree that we and there's an understanding that when I die, I there's like, there's no coming back from that. I mean, I'm obviously there are exceptions, sometimes. Some people, some people, flatline they come back. But if you're flatlining for a week, you're not coming back from that, right? So so there's, there's a permanency to that experience that and and, and our deepest drive is to avoid that. So to avoid that clear, at least, at least from our mortal, mortal perspective, clear, true or false If true, being your dead and false being your life. That is clear that okay, if I'm, if I'm talking right now, as the card would say that I exist. In a more biological setup, sense, I'm not dead. And, and, and it drives all those questions, I suppose. But again, like, also going back to language as a logical tool, essentially. What do you think there's going to be a funny question, what do you think people before language would think? Would they have similar thoughts to these things? Now? I mean, obviously, in a simpler case, and not thinking like quantum physics, I suppose. But what do you think all of these are fatalities of language that we're carrying with ourselves? Or is it drive by language? Or is it more fundamental? So if we didn't have language for people who didn't invent language yet, back in? I don't know how long ago? Would they have similar thoughts? Do you think?
Govind 43:11
Well, I think we do have animals, right? Like, I mean, when we have these, you have any pets? Do you
Pouya LJ 43:17
mean no? Okay, before, but I know Okay, yeah. No, but I can understand what you're where you're going.
Govind 43:24
But when you have, like interactions with animals, I love animals. It's almost like you have this communication with them. That's that's not like you. I mean, I don't I can see versus and they probably don't understand me, unless all animals know English, and they just choose to ignore us. And they like humans are too stupid. There was a
Pouya LJ 43:43
cabal of animals deciding that this is not a good idea. Yes.
Govind 43:48
Lots of Rick and Morty episodes. But yeah, no, I think I mean, it's just that that awareness that being that's that's just there right? I think that is rooted in language fundamentally. Like I don't I don't know if we can actually get past this. This like our art like the language that we have developed evolved and developed is like it serves a very good purpose which is sharing thoughts with each other sharing these these like awareness experiences with each other right? But at the root of it all like I mean, it's all about that awareness and you brought up such a great point about death right? And how death is that binary which kind of makes us realize like you know, like there is such a thing as a clear like a clear line drawn in the in the northern sand like a line drawn in the concrete You know, this this is it like you know, there's life and then there's not life so so that that is actually such a such a great point about why negations work in this in this sense. I seem to have lost you guys
Pouya LJ 44:47
know, we can hear you. Okay. Oh, yeah, your picture froze, but I can hear you so that's good. Excellent.
Govind 44:53
Yeah. Well, yeah, that's that's the point I wanted to make. You know, it's a it's like these these ideas do exist, but I'm sure Animals have a notion of death as well. Right? And animals. Oh, yeah. Their their experiences and all that.
Pouya LJ 45:05
Yeah, no. And that's true. The notion of death is obviously at least in its more primal sense of obvious. Obviously, they're, they're trying to avoid it. But there are no but my point was, so so the rabbit holes that we go to and get stuck in it, then half of the way to the destination, and then half it, and then half of them and have it is this. My This is what is this? Now? Now this one is not as outside of language, actually, some, I'm kind of negating myself, but is a lot of these problems with language and and how we're communicating with each other. Because honestly, like, there are instances that I think I should have been thinking about this. Do I think with myself, like when there's nobody else, I don't have to communicate with anybody else. I don't need to use language, English, Farsi, whatever, to communicate with other people. But is there any any? Do I communicate with myself with my thoughts, in language or outside of language? And I've been thinking about this for a while and trying to observe it? And part of it is that, yeah, yeah, most of my thoughts are us using language. But yes, there are pockets sometimes that I feel like, there's a thought that I can't even express it to myself, using language. It's that the, maybe that that's the that's for, like, there's a fog. And I'm perceiving it. There's some sort of experience behind it. But I can't even describe that experience for us. Like, I mean, what what is like, so what is it sounds like an impression of a thought, right? Because a thought is a thought when you're able to express it, maybe? Yeah, so i think i think that that becomes super clear. Well, okay, let me let me give you so this is a, this is going to be a little bit of an exaggeration. Like, it's not what I'm thinking about. So the one that I'm thinking about is more of a thought. But think about this, when you're extremely fearful for your life at a very moment notice of, you know, hitting, you know, you have to you have to run there's there's a, there's a specific quality to that fear. And you're thinking, Okay, maybe there's a bear in front of you. And your thought is that we're going to grab this knife, but are you really thinking in terms of wars, I am going to grab this knife, you see a knife, you you want to grab it, you know what I mean? That's a thought that I'm going to grab this knife, but it's not really in any language. And that is really forced when I think I can see myself doing that, at least, when it comes to the precipice of like some sort of when it combines with some sort of very strong emotion such as, okay, I have to grab this knife or gun or whatever, shoot this bear, I'm not thinking to myself, okay, I am going to grab a gun, and I am going to pull the trigger at this. No, that's not it, you just know, right? That's a
Govind 48:01
possibility. It's like you're like, the way I think of it is like, it's almost like a design space of everything that could possibly happen given what's around you. Right? So it's like you're sampling from this design space. Like one of these events, for example, is like you picking up a knife or like, you know, you punching someone in the face. This is around you. Something like it's like these are these are just, I think the mind is really good at generating these kind of things, which is just sampling points from, from this design space of what's around us, right? Yeah. And then and then these are actions or like, these are these are impressions. Yeah. It's like, yeah, we just, we just like, we have all these things around this, like stimulus. And our mind is generating these things. And most of the time, it's like, it's pretty pragmatic. It's like, Oh, you have to put on your shoes to walk. It's like this thing you tell yourself, but you're not really thinking you're doing things. But like, sometimes it's just like random thoughts. Like it's our mind is a pretty interesting random number generator. Deep. What are your thoughts on that?
Deep 49:00
Okay, it really is. I agree with that. I mean, you can always say that, uh, you know, all of our output all of our, I've always wondered, you know, the, what is it the thousand monkey or the infinite monkey experiment or thought experiment where what would happen if you let monkeys play with a typewriter for an infinite amount of time, right? There's the idea that they would eventually create Shakespeare. And it makes me question the idea of creativity and thought, is it a linear combination of what you already know? Or is it truly something that will eventually appear emergent from random fucking monkey? Monkey actions, right? Like, what what is true intelligent creativity? So with that being said, I really had a I was thinking, though, you know, on that note about us looking at death and life is binary. That's true. We are classical creatures, like we observe the universe in classical sense, right? Everything is and so because it's macroscopic to us, I wonder, what if? What does life look like for, let's say, micro organism that doesn't experience the world classically like we do, right? What if there are, there are quantum organisms that are only experiencing the world and quantum mechanics? To them, there would be literally no such thing as a classical I am dead or classical life. What does that mean? What What does death for that organism look like? So yeah, I was just thinking about that. But you guys think,
Pouya LJ 50:34
yeah, no, you're you're dragging us into the pan psychism
Govind 50:41
the movie arrival, right? With the whole concept of like, circular time and all these things, right? Like, this is some I think, innovations of the 21st century like, exploring this, these kind of ideas. I see so many outlets for this in different TV shows and movies and all that stuff. Like this, this like convergence of everything, how everything is one and many at the same time. Right? Well, I guess the fuzziness of everything, right. Like everything is just really fuzzy. And we're, as humanity starting to accept it, which is, you know, really freakin cool.
Pouya LJ 51:12
No, no, it is. And you mentioned an arrival It reminds me of, so I think if I'm not mistaken. Okay, maybe I'm mistaken. But let me let me just make it maybe, you know, I think Stephen Wolfram was an advisor in that movie. I don't know if he really I don't know. That's that I I'm doubting myself now. So anybody out there listening. Please double check for yourselves. Don't quote me on it. But which reminds me he actually I don't know if we're familiar. Actually. I
51:40
don't know why I did a quick Google and
Pouya LJ 51:43
it is like it's okay. Yeah. And he came up with this new What is it? What do you call it? Geez. new stuff. Yeah, he is hypergraph.
Deep 51:56
Physics.
Pouya LJ 51:57
Yes. Yeah. Have you heard about that? Did you look into it?
Deep 52:01
Yeah, I
52:04
I liked it.
Pouya LJ 52:06
So what are your thoughts on that? But super quickly, I don't want to go to a different deep rabbit hole right now. But it reminded me of him when you mentioned arrival.
Deep 52:14
Sure. I mean, various.
Pouya LJ 52:16
I don't know, Dad Galvin. Are you familiar with what it is? Oh, yeah, sure. Sure. Okay. Okay. Cool. Cool. Good.
Deep 52:22
Yeah, just very briefly, I mean, the idea of like, Come complex, physical phenomena from simple rules is nothing new, right. Like that's been talked about for 100 years. What was really interesting was the idea of using causal graphs or attempting to use just like these hyper graphs to encode physical rules. Yeah, I think it's promising. I'd love to see experiments and math and more rigor. But the ideas are cool. Like Stephen Wolfram is really, like he has some fundamental thoughts there that are interesting, unique worth pursuing.
Govind 52:56
These are usually a pioneer of this kind of this kind of funky fuzzy stuff. Right, right. Yeah. Yes, geez theory so much with his work on automata and all that stuff. Well, this release. I mean, I wanted to bring back this point from about 15 minutes ago. We were talking about Zeno's paradoxes. Yeah, a conversation topic for a future podcasts definitely should be the nature of calculus, right? Because, yeah, the way we as humans, resolve Zeno's paradoxes was to create this notion of a limit, we just throw a limit on it. And we say, at some point, it does, it does converge on to this value, right? Like, and I'm like, okay, so you keep cutting the half of your hair. And at some point, you're, you're going to get a full haircut, right? Like, even if you get the convergence now that that notion of convergence, it turns out is not strongly understood by by humans. But I think that's something we need to discuss. And I it stands out for me, because this is one of the first discussions we ever had. Right? Exactly. Yeah.
Deep 53:57
Yeah, absolutely. Talking
Govind 53:58
about limits and how like, that's what I think I first realized I'm like, this doesn't make any sense, does it? It's just, we just put
Deep 54:04
it is it is a great because some that is it all stemmed from some Berkeley kid asking us like, like, about it, right? Like he's like, yeah, this like this. And then yeah,
Govind 54:15
yeah. Yeah. Cool stuff. No, but I think we should explore that in in the next podcast or though sounds good. Sounds good?
Pouya LJ 54:24
No, I think I think okay, well, we made the plan. I don't know about the dates. We'll talk about that later. But next sub subject of the next conversation will be calculus, and its origins, its fundamentals. axioms, I suppose. Okay, I think that's a good. Here's a good stopping point. We almost went full hour here. Is there anything else you want to, you know, close the loop on before we leave this conversation?
Govind 54:54
Well, for me, I think I learned so I mean, I had these thoughts about fuzzy fuzzy thinking and all that stuff. And it was Kind of like in the let's let's see the disk of my, the my external hard disk of my brain is just forgotten there. So it's great to brush the dust off. And I feel like I really kind of added to these models based on this conversation. So yeah, it was very cool. I think we achieved fuzziness today. Yes.
Pouya LJ 55:18
That's great. How about you?
Deep 55:20
Yeah, I would just say that I really appreciated the perspective of the history of history philosophy, with respect to logic, a super neat perspective that you brought to the table or Govind and yeah, just different perspectives that were shared today. Um, it's awesome. It does make things more fuzzy. And yeah, let's keep it going. Guys, I, I think that there's a lot of interesting questions. We post here today. So
Pouya LJ 55:47
okay, and if anybody wants to share their thoughts, feel free you can reach go in and deepen their respective social media, which I'm going to put in the show notes. Don't need to repeat them here. You can you can find them there.
56:01
And comment guys.
Pouya LJ 56:04
Make it make it dirty. No, keep it clean. And all right, stay fuzzy until later episode.
Deep 56:11
Cheers, guys.
More Episodes
All Episodes>>
Get this podcast on your phone, Free
Create Your Podcast In Minutes
- Full-featured podcast site
- Unlimited storage and bandwidth
- Comprehensive podcast stats
- Distribute to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more
- Make money with your podcast
