Buridan's ass

Last updated
Political cartoon c. 1900, showing the United States Congress as Buridan's ass (in the two hay piles version), hesitating between a Panama route or a Nicaragua route for an Atlantic-Pacific canal. Deliberations of Congress.jpg
Political cartoon c. 1900, showing the United States Congress as Buridan's ass (in the two hay piles version), hesitating between a Panama route or a Nicaragua route for an Atlantic–Pacific canal.

Buridan's ass is an illustration of a paradox in philosophy in the conception of free will. It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass (donkey) that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the donkey will always go to whichever is closer, it dies of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision between the hay and water. [1] A common variant of the paradox substitutes the hay and water for two identical piles of hay; the ass, unable to choose between the two, dies of hunger.

Contents

The paradox is named after the 14th-century French philosopher Jean Buridan, whose philosophy of moral determinism it satirizes. Although the illustration is named after Buridan, philosophers have discussed the concept before him, notably Aristotle, who put forward the example of a man equally hungry and thirsty, [2] and Al-Ghazali, who used a man faced with the choice of equally good dates. [3]

A version of this situation appears as metastability in digital electronics, when a circuit must decide between two states based on an input that is in itself undefined (neither zero nor one). Metastability becomes a problem if the circuit spends more time than it should in this "undecided" state, which is usually set by the speed of the clock the system is using.

History

The paradox predates Buridan; it dates to antiquity, being found in Aristotle's On the Heavens . [4] Aristotle, in ridiculing the Sophist idea that the Earth is stationary simply because it is spherical and any forces on it must be equal in all directions, says that is as ridiculous as saying that [4]

...a man, being just as hungry as thirsty, and placed in between food and drink, must necessarily remain where he is and starve to death.

Aristotle, On the Heavens 295b, c. 350 BC

However, the Greeks only used this paradox as an analogy in the context of the equilibrium of physical forces. [4] The 12th-century Persian scholar and philosopher Al-Ghazali discusses the application of this paradox to human decision making, asking whether it is possible to make a choice between equally good courses without grounds for preference. [4] He takes the attitude that free will can break the stalemate.

Suppose two similar dates in front of a man, who has a strong desire for them but who is unable to take them both. Surely he will take one of them, through a quality in him, the nature of which is to differentiate between two similar things.

Andalusian philosopher Averroes (1126–1198), in commentary on Ghazali, takes the opposite view. [4] Although Buridan nowhere discusses this specific problem, its relevance is that he did advocate a moral determinism whereby, save for ignorance or impediment, a human faced by alternative courses of action must always choose the greater good. In the face of equally good alternatives Buridan believed a rational choice could not be made. [5]

Should two courses be judged equal, then the will cannot break the deadlock, all it can do is to suspend judgement until the circumstances change, and the right course of action is clear.

Jean Buridan, c. 1340

Later writers satirised this view in terms of an ass which, confronted by both food and water, must necessarily die of both hunger and thirst while pondering a decision.

Many later philosophers have addressed this problem of "choice without preference". In his Ethics (ca 1661), Baruch de Spinoza accepts that his determinist philosophy implies that such a state of indecision could happen, but that this should be classed with other irrational behavior: [4]

[I]t may be objected, if man does not act from free will, what will happen if the incentives to action are equally balanced, as in the case of Buridan's ass? [In reply,] I am quite ready to admit, that a man placed in the equilibrium described (namely, as perceiving nothing but hunger and thirst, a certain food and a certain drink, each equally distant from him) would die of hunger and thirst. If I am asked, whether such a one should not rather be considered an ass than a man; I answer, that I do not know, neither do I know how a man should be considered, who hangs himself, or how we should consider children, fools, madmen, &c.

Baruch Spinoza, Ethics, book 2, proposition 49, scholium

Pierre Bayle (1647–1706) in his Dictionnaire authored some of the most comprehensive discussions of the problem. He recognized explicitly that if humans have the ability to make a decision between choices with no reason for preference, this means that humans have free will, and bears on man's rationalization of God's choices. He regarded the previous examples of the ass or dates as artificial, and pointed out there are many real instances in everyday life in which a person must make a choice in which the choice doesn't matter to him, and that this presents no problem. [4]

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) believed, from his principle of sufficient reason, that if a person's preferences were really balanced no decision could be made, but that petites perceptions, small perceived preferences below the threshold of consciousness that are always present, explains why people are able to make such a choice. [4]

Discussion

Some proponents of hard determinism such as Spinoza have granted the unpleasantness of the scenario, but have denied that it illustrates a true paradox, since one does not contradict oneself in suggesting that a man might die between two equally plausible routes of action.

Other writers[ who? ] have opted to deny the validity of the illustration. A typical[ citation needed ] counter-argument is that rationality as described in the paradox is so limited as to be a straw man version of the real thing, which does allow the consideration of meta-arguments. In other words, it is entirely rational to recognize that both choices are equally good and arbitrarily (randomly) pick one instead of starving; although the decision that they are sufficiently the same is also subject to Buridan's ass. The idea that a random decision could be made is sometimes used as an attempted justification for faith or intuitivity (called by Aristotle noetic or noesis). The argument is that, like the starving ass, we must make a choice to avoid being frozen in endless doubt. Other counter-arguments exist.[ specify ]

According to Edward Lauzinger, Buridan's ass fails to incorporate the latent biases that humans always bring with them when making decisions. [6] [ full citation needed ]

Social Psychologist Kurt Lewin's Field Theory treated this paradox experimentally. [7] He demonstrated that lab rats experience difficulty when choosing between two equally attractive (approach–approach) goals. The typical response to approach–approach decisions is initial ambivalence, though the decision becomes more decisive as the organism moves towards one choice and away from another.

Buridan's principle

The situation of Buridan's ass was given a mathematical basis in a 1984 paper by American computer scientist Leslie Lamport, in which Lamport presents an argument that, given certain assumptions about continuity in a simple mathematical model of the Buridan's ass problem, there is always some starting condition under which the ass starves to death, no matter what strategy it takes. [8] He further illustrates the paradox with the example of a driver stopped at a railroad crossing trying to decide whether he has time to cross before a train arrives. He proves that regardless of how "safe" the policy the driver adopts, because indecision can cause an indefinite delay in action a small percentage of drivers will be hit by the train.

Lamport calls this result "Buridan’s principle": [8]

A discrete decision based upon an input having a continuous range of values cannot be made within a bounded length of time.

He points out that just because we do not see asses or people starving to death through indecision, or other examples of Buridan's undecided states in real life, does not disprove the principle. The persistence of a Buridan's undecided state for a perceptible length of time may just be sufficiently improbable that it has not been observed.

Application to digital logic: metastability

A version of Buridan's principle occurs in electrical engineering. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Specifically, the input to a digital logic gate must convert a continuous voltage value into either a 0 or a 1, which is typically sampled and then processed. If the input is changing and at an intermediate value when sampled, the input stage acts like a comparator. The voltage value can then be likened to the position of the ass, and the values 0 and 1 represent the bales of hay. As in the situation of the starving ass, there exists an input on which the converter cannot make a proper decision, and the output remains balanced in a metastable state between the two stable states for an undetermined length of time, until random noise in the circuit makes it converge to one of the stable states.

In asynchronous circuits, arbiters are used to make the decision. They guarantee that up to one outcome is selected at any given point in time, but may take an indeterminate (albeit typically extremely short) time to choose. [14]

The metastability problem is a significant issue in digital circuit design, and metastable states are a possibility wherever asynchronous inputs (digital signals not synchronized to a clock signal) occur. The ultimate reason the problem is manageable is that the probability of a metastable state persisting longer than a given time interval t is an exponentially declining function of t. In electronic devices, the probability of such an "undecided" state lasting longer than a matter of nanoseconds, while always possible, can be made negligibly low.

See also

Related Research Articles

Inertia is the tendency of objects in motion to stay in motion and objects at rest to stay at rest, unless a force causes its speed or direction to change. It is one of the fundamental principles in classical physics, and described by Isaac Newton in his first law of motion. It is one of the primary manifestations of mass, one of the core quantitative properties of physical systems. Newton writes:

LAW I. Every object perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, except insofar as it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Formally, this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p). The law is not to be confused with the law of excluded middle which states that at least one, "p is the case" or "p is not the case", holds.

In philosophy and logic, the classical liar paradox or liar's paradox or antinomy of the liar is the statement of a liar that they are lying: for instance, declaring that "I am lying". If the liar is indeed lying, then the liar is telling the truth, which means the liar just lied. In "this sentence is a lie" the paradox is strengthened in order to make it amenable to more rigorous logical analysis. It is still generally called the "liar paradox" although abstraction is made precisely from the liar making the statement. Trying to assign to this statement, the strengthened liar, a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction.

In philosophy, economics, and political science, the common good is either what is shared and beneficial for all or most members of a given community, or alternatively, what is achieved by citizenship, collective action, and active participation in the realm of politics and public service. The concept of the common good differs significantly among philosophical doctrines. Early conceptions of the common good were set out by Ancient Greek philosophers, including Aristotle and Plato. One understanding of the common good rooted in Aristotle's philosophy remains in common usage today, referring to what one contemporary scholar calls the "good proper to, and attainable only by, the community, yet individually shared by its members."

Indeterminism is the idea that events are not caused, or are not caused deterministically.

The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause. The principle was articulated and made prominent by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, with many antecedents, and was further used and developed by Arthur Schopenhauer and Sir William Hamilton, 9th Baronet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Analysis paralysis</span> Overthinking causes

Analysis paralysis describes an individual or group process where overanalyzing or overthinking a situation can cause forward motion or decision-making to become "paralyzed", meaning that no solution or course of action is decided upon within a natural time frame. A situation may be deemed too complicated and a decision is never made, or made much too late, due to anxiety that a potentially larger problem may arise. A person may desire a perfect solution, but may fear making a decision that could result in error, while on the way to a better solution. Equally, a person may hold that a superior solution is a short step away, and stall in its endless pursuit, with no concept of diminishing returns. On the opposite end of the time spectrum is the phrase extinct by instinct, which is making a fatal decision based on hasty judgment or a gut reaction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liberal paradox</span> Logical paradox in economic theory

The liberal paradox, also Sen paradox or Sen's paradox, is a logical paradox proposed by Amartya Sen which shows that no means of aggregating individual preferences into a single, social choice, can simultaneously fulfill the following, seemingly mild conditions:

  1. The unrestrictedness condition, or U: every possible ranking of each individual's preferences and all outcomes of every possible voting rule will be considered equally,
  2. The Pareto condition, or P: if everybody individually likes some choice better at the same time, the society in its voting rule as a whole likes it better as well, and
  3. Liberalism, or L : all individuals in a society must have at least one possibility of choosing differently, so that the social choice under a given voting rule changes as well. That is, as an individual liberal, anyone can exert their freedom of choice at least in some decision with tangible results.

Deontic logic is the field of philosophical logic that is concerned with obligation, permission, and related concepts. Alternatively, a deontic logic is a formal system that attempts to capture the essential logical features of these concepts. It can be used to formalize imperative logic, or directive modality in natural languages. Typically, a deontic logic uses OA to mean it is obligatory that A, and PA to mean it is permitted that A, which is defined as .

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Metastability (electronics)</span> Ability of a digital electronic system to remain in unstable equilibrium forever

In electronics, metastability is the ability of a digital electronic system to persist for an unbounded time in an unstable equilibrium or metastable state. In digital logic circuits, a digital signal is required to be within certain voltage or current limits to represent a '0' or '1' logic level for correct circuit operation; if the signal is within a forbidden intermediate range it may cause faulty behavior in logic gates the signal is applied to. In metastable states, the circuit may be unable to settle into a stable '0' or '1' logic level within the time required for proper circuit operation. As a result, the circuit can act in unpredictable ways, and may lead to a system failure, sometimes referred to as a "glitch". Metastability is an instance of the Buridan's ass paradox.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fallibilism</span> Philosophical principle

Originally, fallibilism is the philosophical principle that propositions can be accepted even though they cannot be conclusively proven or justified, or that neither knowledge nor belief is certain. The term was coined in the late nineteenth century by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, as a response to foundationalism. Theorists, following Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper, may also refer to fallibilism as the notion that knowledge might turn out to be false. Furthermore, fallibilism is said to imply corrigibilism, the principle that propositions are open to revision. Fallibilism is often juxtaposed with infallibilism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Problem of future contingents</span> Statements involving superpositions of truth

Future contingent propositions are statements about states of affairs in the future that are contingent: neither necessarily true nor necessarily false.

<i>The Incoherence of the Incoherence</i> Book by Averroes

The Incoherence of the Incoherence by Andalusian Muslim polymath and philosopher Ibn Rushd is an important Islamic philosophical treatise in which the author defends the use of Aristotelian philosophy within Islamic thought.

<i>The Paradox of Choice</i> 2004 book by Barry Schwartz

The Paradox of Choice – Why More Is Less is a book written by American psychologist Barry Schwartz and first published in 2004 by Harper Perennial. In the book, Schwartz argues that eliminating consumer choices can greatly reduce anxiety for shoppers. The book analyses the behavior of different types of people. This book argues that the dramatic explosion in choice—from the mundane to the profound challenges of balancing career, family, and individual needs—has paradoxically become a problem instead of a solution and how our obsession with choice encourages us to seek that which makes us feel worse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Buridan's bridge</span> Logical paradox

Buridan's Bridge is described by Jean Buridan, one of the most famous and influential philosophers of the Late Middle Ages, in his book Sophismata. It is a self-referential paradox that involves a proposition pronounced about an event that might or might not happen in the future.

Fredkin's paradox concerns the negative correlation between the difference between two options and the difficulty of deciding between them. Developed further, the paradox constitutes a major challenge to the possibility of pure instrumental rationality.

Wollheim's paradox is a problem in political philosophy that points to an inherent contradiction in the concept of democracy. The paradox highlights the fact that a person can simultaneously advocate two conflicting policy options A and B, provided that the person believes that democratic decisions should be followed. The paradox was formulated by the British philosopher Richard Wollheim in 1962 in an article entitled "A paradox in the theory of democracy".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cultural references to donkeys</span> Donkeys as depicted in culture

There are many cultural references to donkeys, in myth, folklore and religion, in language and in literature.

References

  1. "Buridan's ass: Oxford Companion to Phrase and Fable". Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 2009-12-15.
  2. "On The Heavens, Book 2 Part 13.III". Internet Classics Archive. Retrieved 16 April 2024.
  3. 1 2 Kane, Robert (2005). A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will. New York: Oxford. p. 37.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rescher, Nicholas (2013). Cosmos and Logos: Studies in Greek Philosophy. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 93–99. ISBN   393720265X.[ permanent dead link ]
  5. Kinniment, David J. (2008). Synchronization and Arbitration in Digital Systems. John Wiley & Sons. p. 3. ISBN   978-0470517130.
  6. "Thought and Process", Lauzinger, Edward, 1994
  7. Smith, Noel W. (Apr 1, 1968). "On the Origin of Conflict Types". The Psychological Record. 18 (2): 229–232. doi:10.1007/BF03393765 . Retrieved May 15, 2023 via Springer Link.
  8. 1 2 Leslie Lamport (December 1984). "Buridan's Principle" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-07-09.
  9. Leslie Lamport (December 1984). "Buridan's Principle" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-07-09., p. 8
  10. Xanthopoulos, Thucydides (2009). Clocking in Modern VLSI Systems. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 191. ISBN   978-1441902610.
  11. Niederman, Derrick (2012). The Puzzler's Dilemma. Penguin. p. 130. ISBN   978-1101560877.
  12. Zbilut, Joseph P. (2004). Unstable Singularities and Randomness. Elsevier. p. 7. ISBN   0080474691.
  13. Kinniment, David J. (2008). Synchronization and Arbitration in Digital Systems. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 2–6. ISBN   978-0470517130.
  14. Sutherland, Ivan E.; Ebergen, Jo (August 2002). "Computers Without Clocks". Scientific American . 287 (2): 62–69. Bibcode:2002SciAm.287b..62S. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0802-62. PMID   12140955.
  15. Carl Sandburg (1954), Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years, 1960 reprint, New York: Dell, Vol. 1, Ch. 7, "Congressman Lincoln", p. 173.

Bibliography

Commons-logo.svg Media related to Buridan's ass at Wikimedia Commons