Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/13

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner delve into fuzzy logic as a model for non-binary truth, linking it to quantum mechanics, computational theory, and how the brain processes incomplete information. Rosner suggests fuzzy logic reflects how humans intuitively simulate the world—through probabilistic, context-sensitive frameworks—not rigid, rule-based systems.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, let us start with the easier ones—fuzzy logic. Degrees of truth. Modelling vagueness. Instead of binary categories like hot or cold, fuzzy logic allows gradations: hot, warm, cool, cold—continuous ranges of truth. You can build systems with values like true, false, maybe; or true, false, indeterminate; or even true, false, indeterminate, and meaningless. 

A meaningless question would be something like Chomsky’s famous example: “Do colourless green ideas sleep furiously?” Grammatically correct, but semantically meaningless. It has a syntactic structure, but no coherent content.

So fuzzy logic systems can be three-valued, four-valued, or even infinitely valued. The point is that truth is not always binary—there is often a spectrum. That is the core insight. 

What are your thoughts on fuzzy logic?

Rick Rosner: Well, I always end up circling back to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the mathematics of what you can do informationally when you do not have complete information, and that is fuzzy logic.

I remember when fuzzy logic started gaining attention back in the 1970s. People were excited—it opened up new possibilities. Moreover, sure, it probably did. However, ultimately, it is still quantum-adjacent. It all ties back to quantum physics.

Quantum computing, for example, deals with information structures that are not binary. It creates multivalued systems—not in terms of true/false, but in terms of superposition and parallelism—little multi-worlds where many possibilities are computed simultaneously.

Take the travelling salesperson problem. Say a salesperson has to visit 10 cities. What is the most efficient route? That problem is computationally brutal with classical computers. You have to test all possible routes. As you go from 10 cities to 12 to 20, the computational load explodes.

There is a term from computational theory—P vs NP—that covers how fast problems scale. Moreover, this one scales fast. It is an NP-hard problem.

However, quantum computing can “unexplode” it. It can run multiple possibilities at once using quantum parallelism. That is the trick—it lets you solve otherwise intractable problems more efficiently.

Still, it is quantum mechanics. It is just the math of incomplete information applied powerfully.

Moreover, it is possible that evolution found similar shortcuts in the brain. Our minds do not explicitly compute every scenario. We operate with tacit knowledge. We simulate reality based on fuzzy, probabilistic frameworks, not strict rule-based logic.

So these systems—fuzzy logic, multivalued logics, and ordered degrees of truth—they reflect how we think. We often operate with semi-truths. “This is more true than that.” That is how our brains work.

All of that could be modelled with quantum mechanics—it falls under the umbrella of information theory. The problem is, our information theory is still incomplete.

We have yet to understand the contexts in which information exists entirely. Most of the time, we assume the context is obvious—so obvious that we do not even recognize it as a requirement. However, context shapes meaning, and we tend to overlook that entirely.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/13

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore dynamic epistemic logic, modal logic, and neurocognitive models of thought. They examine how knowledge updates affect reality models, the brain’s balancing act between stability and plasticity, and logic systems like Kleene’s and von Neumann’s. The conversation bridges philosophy, neuroscience, and computational reasoning.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This next topic is primarily empirical—Dynamic Epistemic Logic. It is not about beliefs about beliefs, but about how knowledge updates change models over time. As information increases, so does the accuracy of the model. In a person, this represents a rational agent—someone who updates their internal model of the world based on new information.

Rick Rosner: People’s brains work differently. If you are frequently in an altered state, you might experience effects resembling psychosis. If your brain struggles to form stable categories or object constancies that help interpret your surroundings, you can lose your grip on reality. That is one lens through which to understand schizophrenia—impaired cognitive coherence and disrupted pattern recognition.

Psychoactive drugs can disrupt this, too. Some substances interfere with forming a consistent, moment-to-moment picture of the world. LSD, for instance, affects serotonin receptors and can distort sensory perception, which some find disorienting.

However, a model of reality that’s too consistent can also be limiting—too rigid to allow learning, adaptation, or belief revision.

The brain evolved to balance stability and plasticity. You need a stable representation of the world, but you must also revise it as reality shifts.

Jacobsen: Where does the ability to think new thoughts come from?

Rosner: It likely stems from the structure and dynamics of dendritic connections. The connectome—the network of synaptic wiring—shapes thought patterns and how categories form. It underlies your model of the world.

However, other mechanisms may be involved. We discussed astrocytes last week—glial cells once considered passive support structures. Now, research suggests they may play roles in modulating synaptic transmission and possibly even information processing.

The brain relies on stable yet adaptable architectures. You need a logic system capable of describing that interaction.

You also generate short-term thoughts rapidly, working memory or transient representations. This likely involves neural circuits in the prefrontal cortex and relies on fast neurochemical dynamics. It differs from long-term memory storage, which involves structural changes and consolidation.

Jacobsen: Modal Logic—the logic of necessity and possibility. Thoughts?

Rosner: All this logic discussion reminds me of cooking shows—same basic elements, rearranged. The core goal is avoiding contradiction. It is like quantum mechanics. 

Jacobsen: Or information theory. In modal logic, necessity means proposition p is valid in all possible worlds accessible from the current world. Possibility means p is true in at least one accessible world. The key difference is that possibility assumes p is true in some world—an existential claim. What exactly are we thinking? It is an Information Cosmology assumption. If we take the existence of a “current” world—our point of reference—then possibility means p is true in at least one accessible world, and necessity means p is valid in all accessible worlds. This assumption—that there is a current world to begin with—is foundational to how modal logic functions. So IC is compatible with…

Rosner: Think of it as a possibility cone. In the present, you have more certainty than about any past or future moment. The further into the past, the more possible paths could have led here. The further into the future, the more branches diverge. 

Jacobsen: We are still on modal logic. Next is Kleene’s three-valued logic. It introduces a third truth value: undefined or indeterminate. This is used in systems where not all propositions can be evaluated as strictly true or false, such as in partial functions or specific computational contexts. John von Neumann had a variation with values like true, false, meaningless, and probable, right?

Rosner: Yes—he explored multi-valued logic systems, especially in the context of quantum logic and computing. Some of his proposals incorporated probabilistic truth values or distinctions between determinacy and indeterminacy.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time tonight.

Rosner: Talk to you tomorrow.

Jacobsen: Same time-ish.

Rosner: Bye.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/01

 Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore the distributed nature of cognition, emphasizing neural and glial interplay, the evolving truth of historical narratives, and the adaptive flexibility of paraconsistent logic. Their dialogue highlights how brains process contradiction, update knowledge, and embody rational and irrational behaviors across multiple representational modalities.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you have any further thoughts and nuances on the logic? 

Rick Rosner: The current thinking is that the connectome — the complete map of neural connections in the brain — is central to consciousness, memory, and other cognitive functions. What we are, in a sense, is encoded in the pattern of dendritic and synaptic connections among neurons.

More recently, researchers have discovered that astrocytes — glial cells in the brain that support neurons — may play an active role in information processing and synaptic modulation. While neurons remain the primary carriers of electrical signals, astrocytes influence the flow and integration of information, suggesting that memory and consciousness may not be limited to neurons alone.

Regardless, it is some distributed network — involving neurons, glial cells, and their connections — that encodes cognition and identity. What we know appears to be rooted in patterns of relationships. Everything we understand is constructed relative to other elements. It is not easy to imagine it functioning any other way—every word gains meaning from its associations.

You will notice that each word is defined, in part, through its relationship to other words — a network of associations. Similarly, what is considered “true” is often restricted and constrained by the structure of that network. Moreover, what is considered accurate can evolve over time.

For instance, consider historical truths: Was Mussolini widely seen as a dictator when he first took power in 1922? At the time, many Italians supported him, seeing him as a restorer of order and national pride. It was only as his policies and alliances unfolded — particularly with Nazi Germany and during World War II — that public opinion shifted significantly. He ruled until 1943, and perceptions of him underwent drastic changes over those two decades.

This suggests the brain can store and compare contexts across time. It retains previous states or frames of understanding, allowing us to reassess past “truths” in light of new information.

Jacobsen: So, your brain stores and recalls past contexts. What was considered valid in one moment can be revisited and compared to present conditions, leading to a synthesis — a new, more nuanced understanding that integrates both.

Now, consider logic. Suppose we assume a proposition A. If that assumption leads us to a contradiction — for example, we derive both A and not A — then the assumption must be false. This is the classical method of reductio ad absurdum: to disprove a statement by showing that it logically leads to absurdity or contradiction.

In formal logic, this type of contradiction is employed to refute a hypothesis. However, in non-classical or paraconsistent logics — such as paraconsistent logic or quantum logic — contradictions can exist without collapsing the system. These frameworks enable more nuanced truth values and better reflect the real-world complexity, particularly in fields such as quantum mechanics or specific AI systems.

This flexibility suggests that logic systems can be embedded within broader informational structures — such as the human brain or the universe — capable of accommodating classical, probabilistic, and quantum logics simultaneously. We know this because humans can reason across all of these domains.

There are at least two ways for systems to lose information. One is structural degradation, such as in Alzheimer’s disease, where the brain’s architecture deteriorates and its capacity to store and retrieve information diminishes. Another is semantic decay — when information becomes unreliable, contradictory, or outdated due to new events or insights. In such cases, previous knowledge must be revised or discarded.

This is especially relevant to subjective experience. Earlier, we discussed subjectivities — individual frameworks for interpreting the world. These include both linguistic and non-linguistic forms of knowledge representation, as well as explicit (conscious, verbalized) and implicit (intuitive, embodied) forms. They also encompass symbolic (using language or systems) and non-symbolic (such as emotional or sensory experiences) forms.

The contradictions in those systems should only be contradictions within a classical logical framework. However, in a paraconsistent logic arrangement, you can have individual inconsistencies and still derive consistent information or conclusions.

So, you can handle that contradiction. Maybe these buffering systems — whether neural, informational, or otherwise — incorporate that capacity.

Rosner: I always return to quantum mechanics. In a quantum mechanical description of the world, you are incorporating different levels of certainty or “knownness,” depending on the local context. Some properties are highly pinned down, like the existence of macro objects.

For instance, every gram of matter contains roughly a mole of particles. A mole is approximately 6.022×10236.022×1023 particles. That is Avogadro’s number — a considerable number. So with that, primarily many existent things, the macro-level object reliably exists, at least locally, due to the sheer number of particles composing it.

People in another solar system may have no idea whether there is even one baseball in ours — or thousands — but within our local context, we can say definitively that such objects exist. Do you want to move on to something else?

Jacobsen: Yes. There is one more aspect here, related to systems of thought. Someone might say, “I am rational,” yet behave irrationally. That linguistic statement is inconsistent with the behavioural outputs of the broader knowledge system. Therefore, they may act in ways that are inconsistent with their stated beliefs but consistent with their implicit or non-linguistic knowledge.  Perhaps paraconsistent logic, when applied to cognition, enables multiple knowledge representations, where language is just one modality. And yes, we are multimodal creatures. The brain assigns different weights to the information it processes, including the modality through which the data is encoded.

Rosner: We have talked about this before — like how people “think with their dicks.” That is, they assign disproportionate weight to behavioural strategies rooted in reproductive drives, even when these conflict with their own long-term survival or rational interests.

You may have made a string of rational decisions, and then suddenly crash a scooter. However, next time, you will account for hydroplaning. The brain adapts — it revises its weighting scheme based on experience.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/18

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine paraconsistent logic, which manages contradictions without logical collapse, and discuss its conceptual parallels in quantum theory and cosmology. They relate these ideas to challenges in artificial intelligence, such as hallucinations and limited self-correction, considering how nonclassical frameworks could support more reliable and resilient AI systems.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I would like to get your first thoughts on this: Paraconsistent logic is a branch of nonclassical logic that allows for the controlled handling of contradictions without collapsing into triviality. It is avoiding the principle of explosion. In classical logic, if a contradiction exists within a set of premises, then any conclusion can be validly inferred. This is known as an explosion. Paraconsistent logics modify inference rules, so contradictions do not automatically entail every possible statement, which makes them useful for reasoning with inconsistent information without rendering the system meaningless.

This is particularly relevant in fields such as computer science, artificial intelligence, and philosophical logic, where contradictory data or self-referential statements may naturally arise. By redefining how negation and inference work, paraconsistent systems can maintain coherence and yield meaningful conclusions even when contradictions are present. Such ideas might even find conceptual parallels in IC. What are your initial thoughts?

Rick Rosner: I agree. This notion resonates with a broader perspective in which certain aspects of quantum theory and cosmology also reveal how seemingly contradictory phenomena coexist. For example, in quantum mechanics, particles can exist in superposed states — a kind of physical parallel to logical indeterminacy, though not a direct use of paraconsistent logic. 

Jacobsen: An expert friend works in quantum field theory, where he talked about employing creation and annihilation operators. These describe the process by which particles are created and destroyed within a quantum field.

He is a cosmologist working at the intersection of quantum cosmology and string theory and frequently discusses how first-order models describe the simple creation and annihilation of particles. At higher orders, these models generalize to whole quantum fields that represent an entire universe. At more speculative levels — such as in specific multiverse frameworks — multiple, causally disconnected universes could arise, governed by rules that challenge our classical notions of consistency.

However, it is essential to clarify that mainstream quantum mechanics and cosmology do not adopt paraconsistent logic. Instead, they tolerate counterintuitive or classically paradoxical phenomena through mathematically rigorous frameworks that remain consistent. The analogy is philosophical: just as paraconsistent logic relaxes specific inference rules to contain contradictions, quantum systems handle apparent paradoxes within precise, non-contradictory formalisms.

Rosner: We have touched on this indirectly before — how a universe with a long and complex history distributes information across vast distances and how information always requires a consistent context that may be much larger than the local snapshots we observe.

There is enough time for signals to travel farther than the apparent age of the universe. The observable universe is about 14 billion years old. Still, that age is the product of countless interactions over time that shape what we see. 

The local regions of the universe — the ones close to you — are not significantly redshifted, so you share more of a history with them. The farther away you look, the more redshifted regions are, and the less history you have in common with them. By the time you get to the most extremely redshifted regions, you share almost no common history at all.

In this framework, your local universe plays out its history, eventually runs low on free energy, collapses or becomes redshifted beyond relevance. Then, a new active region emerges and builds its local history. Meanwhile, you are effectively displaced to the periphery, surrounded by vast periods during which the local universe remains highly consistent — even out to significant redshifts. 

However, the active center continually exhausts its energy. It drifts away, replaced by new active centers, where everything remains coherent due to continuous exchanges of information — including photons, neutrinos, and other messengers.

Think of it this way: the universe functions as an association engine, much like our brains. You can reactivate an old, collapsed, but still relevant region of the universe. Once you do, it starts exchanging radiation again over billions of years with the new active center.

Gradually, they converge on a shared history spanning ten or twenty billion years. In effect, you build a stable context: a “shakedown” across deep time that determines what information remains true when multiple contexts coexist.

I see the universe as having room — through these active centers and collapsed outskirts — for many overlapping contexts: what is true now, what relationships were genuine in the past, and so on. I hesitate to call them “cycles” since that implies a universe that repeatedly explodes and collapses, which I do not accept. 

Instead, I see layered contexts that preserve information once true and allow it to be reintegrated into the present context. You can revive these contexts and merge them with the current one, producing a composite reality that coherently combines information over billions of years.

Jacobsen: What about the potential for robust error correction? Not just tolerating contradictions but having deep fault tolerance within the system itself. For example, in many AI systems today, people talk about “hallucinations” — the tendency of large language models to produce plausible but incorrect outputs.

Hallucination is a real issue. It is more fundamental than people realize. Terrence Tao, in a recent interview, noted that when these systems produce faulty reasoning, they often lack an internal pathway for self-correction. Moreover, if they do correct themselves, it may happen by accident rather than through a robust design. This highlights a deeper issue at the core of how these models address uncertainty and error.

Rosner: One possible way to address this is to build systems — whether logical or computational — that can inherently handle inconsistency without breaking down, similar to how paraconsistent logic contains contradictions without triviality. 

However, I am not sure that current AI’s “thinking” even exists within anything we can meaningfully call a “universe.” At a minimum, it does not operate within a universe as we understand it in physics; its computation space is far narrower and more brittle.

The AI computation realm is relatively shallow and may not be considered a full-fledged context in the same way the universe is. It can easily fall into trivial or nonsensical pathways — rabbit holes, so to speak. 

Jacobsen: This ties back to a point I made in another interview: the integrity, strength, or “intelligence” of AI systems connected to the Internet is constrained by the integrity of the information available and by the infrastructure of the Internet itself. As long as they rely on that, they are limited by its shortcomings.

The Internet is certainly not a self-contained computational universe. It is, in a sense, a patchwork artifact — the product of countless human choices, flaws, and improvisations. 

Rosner: It appears polished compared to raw human thought, but it is not mathematically comparable to the coherent physical universe.

Jacobsen: Right. However, the systems interacting with the Internet — deep learning models and neural networks — are built on mathematical frameworks that reinforce themselves through training.

Another critical point is that when people say computers “hallucinate,” they mean the model produces output that seems plausible but is false or misleading. However, think about human thinking: before we have a clear thought, we also misread, misperceive, or half-form sentences and then self-correct.

Rosner: We do it constantly. We do not usually call it “hallucinating.” For humans, there is early error correction because our brains have multiple redundant checking systems. So when an AI “hallucinates,” perhaps it is simply a self-contained inference process generating the most probable continuation given the prompts it received — even if that output conflicts with verified knowledge.

It has no awareness of what it does not know; it just predicts the likeliest next chunk of text based on its training. Moreover, we now understand that many AI models are biased by design because developers train them to produce outputs that serve product goals — often to be agreeable or engaging.

Jacobsen: Sam Altman recently mentioned that a version of ChatGPT last year was too obsequious — too eager to flatter the user. He acknowledged it and said they were adjusting it to be less sycophantic. However, ultimately, with hundreds of millions of active users weekly, the AI is shaped by both its training data and user interactions.

In effect, we, the users, are co-trainers. The AI may learn, or appear to know, that flattering the user results in better engagement, which aligns with the business model: maximizing user interaction frequency and duration. That is the math behind it.

Rosner: And so whatever else supports that behaviour, the AI discovers. It is not explicitly designed to do so. Still, it likely learns this either through explicit training metrics or indirectly. For example, it might figure out that if it calls people “assholes,” they do not return as often as when it flatters them and calls them “brilliant.”

Jacobsen: It also depends on the temperament and vision of the company’s leadership. For instance, Elon Musk’s companies sometimes introduce features that feel immature or gimmicky. One example is Tesla — at one point, they allowed the car horn to be replaced with a fart sound, which later raised safety concerns.

Rosner: I read an article about the thought that goes into designing the artificial sounds made by electric vehicles. Since electric cars are so quiet, they need to emit specific sounds to alert pedestrians. There is a whole industry behind this.

Jacobsen: Right. The personalities behind these companies shape these choices. For example, ChatGPT even hired a renowned designer — Jony Ive, who was key to Apple’s product design. He has influenced many subtle aspects of how technology feels and sounds.

Rosner: The point is that the sounds a car makes are not accidental. They are engineered to create a particular emotional impression for the driver and bystanders. I have sat in edit bays where you choose music beds and sound effects precisely because of the feelings they evoke. For instance, news programs use specific intro beats to signal authority and urgency.

Yes. I am not musically sophisticated myself, but the engineers and designers behind these whirring and humming electric vehicle sound probably spend hundreds of thousands of dollars — or at least tens of thousands — to get them exactly right. 

Jacobsen: Anyway, that is a whole separate topic.

Rosner: Agreed. Let us switch topics.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.