[Avodah] Women's zimun

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, November 6, 2007 9:02 pm, T613K at aol.com wrote (in an email I
addressed part of already):
: BTW aren't the Japanese working on computers that excel at "fuzzy
: logic" which can solve problems that step-by-step straight logic
: cannot solve? ...

(I taught logic to CompSci majors for a couple of years, so we entered
an area I can say something about. BTW, you misunderstood fuzzy logic
in your later explanation. Beqitzur: it's not about multiple
simultaneous rules, it's about rules that yield values beyond just
"yes" and "no". Read on.)

We're much further along than that. If you have a digital thermostat,
it probably already is based on Fuzzy Logic. I'm not sure Zadeh's
"Fuzzy Logic" is the best way to represent more or less vs all or
nothing, but it was that meaning that I was suggesting. There are
other multi-valued logics. Statistics could even be adapted as one.
Quantum Mechanics suggests a third, etc...

Fuzzy Logic is one in which AND means "take the minimum", and OR means
"take the maximum". Say two balls are different shades of red, one a
real primary red -- we'll say it's .9 red, and another somewhat
muddier -- just a .2 red. In FL, we would say that the statement "both
balls are red" is also a .2, while the statement "at least one of
these balls is red" is a .9.

Fuzzy Logic is used in thermostats because the question "is it hot?"
really needs to be able to represent "no", "a little", "very", etc...
Without such gradations, digital thermostats tend to turn the heat on
and off too often (or need some even more complicated solution). Now,
one thermostat manufacturer may weigh the heat based on degrees above
comfort zone. Another might acknowledge that these things are
non-linear, that I'm not nearly half as uncomfortable when the temp is
5 deg off than when it's 10, and may have some fancier weighting
system.

Notice that there are basic rules that any thermostat must comply to.
For example, the temperature should be within the desired range at all
times. All thermostats will end up sharing certain properties of the
rules and the weightings used.

In Artificial Intelligence software, the word "heuristic" is used to
describe a system for finding a solution that is less formal than an
algorithm, might not always get the optimal solution, but is used
because the perfect algorithm either doesn't exist or would be too
slow or complicated to ever get used. In truth, computers are
algorithm machines, and thus the heuristic is really a just different
algorithm than one aimed directly at solving the problem perfectly.

Heuristics better represent human thought, as people aren't algorithm
machines. Heuristics better capture that looseness. Like in this case,
we weigh pros and cons, not follow strict "IF ... THEN ..." rules on
true vs false prepositions.

On Fri, November 9, 2007 6:58 am, Rn Chana Luntz wrote:
: Actually though, do not those teshuvos often read as though they are
: trying to get to a result that they know is correct, and finding the
: tools to do so (prove it is a d'rabbanan, find a snif lehakel or a
: safek or a sfek sfeka)? ...

And much later, in response to my paraphrasing RMKoppel likening the
knowledge of halakhah by a "native speaker" who could then use poetic
license:
:        [P]oetry is by definition situational, is it not - you have to
: know when and how to take licence, and the wrong place and the wrong
: time does not work.  And the poet does not sit there and weight his
: words in the way you described adding in this factor and that.  He
: weaves a pattern with words, which is dependent on the individual
: situation.  I think I like this formulation the best of all.

I do to. But I believe the heuristic is close enough to how people
think to be approximately what the "native speaker" is doing
preconsciously. The difference therefore can be seen as quantitative.
The better you know the right weights, the fewer rules you need to
give you details to weigh. To the point that someone with the right
gestalt (to use RRW's term), "da'as Torah" (using the term in
contemporary idiomatic sense, but specifically within the domain of
pesaq), gefeel, doesn't even realize he is weighing considerations
before they are already weighed.

The whole reason why this thread exists is that we're trying to
describe a process that is normally done by people who never thought
consciously about the nature of the process. (Know how to learn
Brisker derekh? Try writing a guide. You'll realize that even if you
could learn Brisker, you can't explain the art. Similar idea.) I'm
saying that the process includes more weighing pros and cons (or 3- or
4- way, etc.. decisions) than following simple logical rules.

My favorite example of the da'as Torah pesaq is the prohibition of
electricity on Shabbos. There is far more universal agreement that
electricity just doesn't fit the feel of Shabbos, as shaped by hours
of talmud Torah, than on the reason why it's assur. And in fact, some
of the reasons found are self-evidently stretches to explain after the
fact what seemed obvious.

This is also a consequence of my including things beyond textualism in
the weighting system. Formal rules is textualism. That domain grows as
our connection with the other domains, the perpetuity of the culture
and the light of the ideals, decreases.

Heuristics are used because -- returning to the Maharal -- we are
trying to capture something we can't fully capture. There is no
algorithmic solution because a full description of divrei E-lokim
chaim is impossible. Therefore we use the heuristic, the "good enough
for within our limitations" route.


On Mon, November 12, 2007 12:50 am, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Diclaimer I DO NOT insist pesak is algorithmic. I am on record as
: saying otherwise although on this thread i have not taken ANY side
: whatseover!

I do not see how that's consistent with the words at the end of the post:
: AISI this systme is totally subjevctive. If Tsoafos says to ignore a
: Mishnah it is OK but if a C rabbi says to follow a Tur or a Rambam he
: is WRONG.
: HOW?

If you think the alternative is fatally subjective, how can you say
you aren't supporting algorithmism?

But in any case, the above is my best attempt to explain how the
baalei Tosafos and the C Rabbi are doing something different. Your
claim is similar to saying that once I open up room via eilu va'eilu
for personal differences, how am I not including everything? Simply,
the nature of the system creates limits to the range of possibilities.
Otherwise, your air conditioner goes on when it hits 30degF, and and
your heater when it reaches the 90s (also F).

...
:> The concept of halakhah kebasra'i is often cited as the reason why
:> the Bavli has more authority than the Y-mi. RRW would take this to
:> mean "Bavli trumps Y-mi".

: Look the Riof and Ri Migash say this. an dAFAIK so did R. Sa'dyah
: Gaon. I am not advocating this position, I am only the messnger don't
: shoot ME!

None used the word "trump". The question of whether we hold the Bavli
carries [much] more authority than the Y-mi or that the Bavli "trumps"
the Y-mi would require a diyuq lashon. And given the use of absolutes
in Hebrew (dating as far back as Leah being described as "senuah"
rather than "less loved), I don't think such a diyuq is viable.

:> Which then is disproven by how Tosafos treat
:> mayim acharonim. And thus, RRW is left with a question.

: I am not left with any question about mayyim ahcarhonim
: I WOULD ask why are we still makpid on separarting meat and fish since
: this is similar to the mayyim ahcaronim issue [viz.  Bavli medicinal
: requirements which were specifcally waved by the Ga'onim]

Mayim acharonim weren't permitted until after the saqanta was
eliminated. Fish and meat stays in the books with a constant comment
about chamira saqanta mei'issura (not that I claim to know what that
tzora'as related saqanah is...)

: But the GRA re: 2 matzos rejected basrai and went back to Talmud .
: Why?

That's not anarchy. It's people looking at the same thing from
different angles. There are limits because at some point we can
conclude he isn't looking at the same thing. That's weighting text
above all, and placing much faith in Ravina veR' Ashi sof hora'ah --
or in realizing one is no lesser than a rishon and thus one personally
can be their basra'i. Anarchy would be if there is no way to justify
such weighting, but accepting it anyway.

:> However, you just can't pull out the significance of things willy
:> nilly. It's not simply personal opinion. There are textual rules
:> that
:> have textual weights,

: But whose rules are we playing by

The metarules of how we make rules, going back to the point on the
tree where my source of pesaqim and his diverge.

:> there are mimetic histories of how seriously
:> various issues have been treated, and there is the desire to
:> actually
:> help people become yereim usheleimim.

: How does the GRA over-ruling the BY and the Rema  increase shleimus!
: Adreabbah imho it can only  create more mistrust in the process.

You're the one who implied the Gra was an aggadic value kind of
poseiq, by comparing him to another Litvisher mequbal, the SA haRav. I
am not. I am considering him a textual poseiq, and thus wanting to
create more trust in the texts. Perhaps this is just what his
generation needed -- seeing the disconnect the Enlightenment would
cause in everything else. (And maybe this belief that's what he and
the SA haRav share. I don't even fool myself into believing I know SA
haRav well enough to comment.)

: When AhS said Rashba had beter sevar but went with Rosh/Tur re: al
: nekkiyus
: Yaddayim he was putting the process over his opinion.  WADR the GRA
: put his
: opinoin OVER the process
: and sought to repeal the asccepted p'sak of BOTH ashkenaz and
: Sepharard!

And this is where I totally lose you. He puts his process-evolved
version of the process ahead of another version of the process. It's
not subjectivity, it's not anarchy, it's proper use of a heuristic,
with a different idea as to the size of the pros and cons.

: (Such as chassidim looking for a
:> means to allow clapping on Shabbos along to a good hartzig niggun,
:> or
:> helping a couple become parents.)

: And C's say that a guitar on Shabbos inspires THEM! and since they are
: not choshesh for tikkujn Maneh what's the big deal!

The big deal is not being chosheish. A weighting system in which
inspiration is more of an issue than our inability to repeal a taqanah
of Sanhedrin simply is holding a fan, not an elephant's ear. He
reached where the head would be and kept on going. In the end, the
heuristic has to fit the constraints. Otherwise, it just isn't eilu
va'eilu. And you heat will only go on in the summer.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv