First off, I would like to apologize for being over-reactionary in
mislabeling labeling a digression as trolling. I seem to have shot
myself in the foot with that remark.
Second, I will have more to say about specific posts later today, but
I would like to clarify what I mean by Fuzzy Logic (FL), and it's
connection to Classical Logic (eg, Model Theory). On that note, fuzzy
logic truth sets need not be [0,1] but could be anything algebraically
like a Boolean Algebra. Specifically, the truth set could be what's
known as an MV-algebra, which could have some order. Chang's Theorems
relate MV-equations to equations that hold in [0,1], making the
comparison to [0,1] quite relevant, actually, but without (seemingly)
realizing it. I suggest readers interested in what I mean by Fuzzy
Logic see this paper which I referenced, and the references of the
paper I am linking:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/444507.html
PDF version:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/22478/http:zSzzSzwww.cs.cas.czzSzvvvvedcizSzhajekzSzstrls2.pdf/a-set-theory-within.pdf
Recall from an earlier post that I am pushing question (2) on page 8
in reference to a universal fuzzy set axiom and this in relation to
Tegmark's MUH. Perhaps some universal fuzzy set +is+ the universe in
some sense.
Also, for my ME statements (mutual exclusivity), I am suggesting that
"locally" ME holds and maybe sometimes ME does not hold[***], within
the context of Tegmark's MUH. It seems apparent that ME is true in
the parallel we inhabit. With my D+( ) notation above, I was just
trying to formalize a conjecture along the lines of "ME seems locally
true". Discussion of what I mean by designated truth degrees can be
probably found in the references to the paper I just linked to. Also,
I suggest seeing parts of this:
A treatise on many-valued logics
by Siegfried Gottwald
http://worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/44162540
Also, this might be worth trying for background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-valued_logic
[quote]
The first known classical logician who didn't fully accept the law of
the excluded middle was Aristotle (who, ironically, is also generally
considered to be the first classical logician and the "father of
logic"[1]), who admitted that his laws did not all apply to future
events (De Interpretatione, ch. IX).
[/quote]
MV-algebra (truth sets are these sorts of things, basically):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV-algebra
I just wanted to clarify what I mean by F.L. before launching into how
F.L. might interact with the MUH in the sense of a "strong fuzzy
universal set" being the universe.
[***] I'm wondering, not knowing about QM much, how in some parallels
the Copenhagen interpretation could be correct and in others, the
Everett interpretation could be, in light of the MUH---if different
+fundamental equations+ of Physics are true in a Level 4 multiverse
scenario, then are different +interpretations+ of the equations
correct in different parallels?
Perhaps this paradox (and all paradoxes) could have a very
(unsatisfying?) resolution in the context of ME not being universally
"true"?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Mar 21 2008 - 17:14:25 PDT