Re: Discussion of Logic re Physics

From: nichomachus <>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:22:54 -0700 (PDT)

I have been following this discussion and I wanted to respond to this
point because I fail to see why this is such a damning criticism of
the MUH. How is in inconsistent to affirm the existence and reality of
mututally exclusive axiom sets? I realize how that sounds so I would
like to amplify this point with the example that a mathematical
platonist may believe in the independent existence of both Euclidean
and non-Euclidean geometries. Each system is defined by its own set of
axioms and though any two may be mutually inconsistent, any one alone
may be entirely self-consistent. In other words, we don't merge the
axiom sets. Rather, each set defines one mathematical object or entity
that exists independently and in its own right. This is the way that I
read Tegmark's work anyway. I am interested to get other takes on this

On Mar 9, 5:28 pm, Russell Standish <> wrote:
> John, I think you're missing the point. MUH is the Mathematical
> Universe Hypothesis from Tegmark's paper. Fuzzy Logic means something
> quite precise - it is a mathematical theory where truth values take on
> a real value in [0,1], which is called a membership function.
> Brian is proposing something quite specific - to use fuzzy logic to
> resolve the contradictions in merging contradictory axiom sets, which
> would be needed to make Tegmark's proposal work. I am somewhat
> sceptical this can be made to work, but prima facie I cannot see any
> showstopper. Brian might just be right, so if he wants to pursue this
> as a PhD topic, then good on him.
> Cheers
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 05:43:29PM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
> > Jamie, before you and correspondents enter that 50,000 line write-up
> > about the 'impressions'
> > of concepts you mentioned and asked for, a warning:
> > Impressions, even definitions/identifications are very personal. A
> > vocabulary of one's terms can't be just 'translated': it has to be
> > adapted to the entire 'mindset' of the person who uses it.
> > You have to 'walk in my shoes' to rightfully apply MY definitions from
> > MY vocabulary.
> > George L remarked that MUH is superceding Fuzzy Logic (George, pls.
> > correct me if I read you wrong) as a mathematically describable
> > theorem, what I take with a grain of salt: maybe F.L. is based on a
> > root what also sprouted mathematical thinking as well?  (Even if I
> > deckipher the M in MUH as Multiple, when in my opinion every one of
> > the U-multitude is fundamentally different and no individual can (in
> > toto) exist identically in them all or do the same activity as he
> > does:here(?). )
> > I considered the original F.L. idea as a diversion from the
> > quantizable (mathematical?) formal logic, just before mathematically
> > impaired minds adopted the idea into the math-based TOE.
> > (Remember: my 'everything' includes more than the ' numbers-based'
> > part of it and here I am still missing a (common sense) advice from
> > the list) how to understand 'numbers' (especially in the Bruno defined
> > "integers only" sense differently from "numbers - as in integers". *)
> > I still did not reject David  Bohm's "numbers are human invention" groundrule.
> > So Your escapade into Fuzzy Logic is a valid one for me, irrespective
> > of a (narrowly cut) MUH
> > only I don't see the possibility of a wide-range agreement in
> > 'concepts' among people with different - well - what? sci. worldview?
> > basic (sci.) philosophy? specialization? or even the not-so-obvious
> > "common sense".
> > John M
> > *) the statement that everything (including mentality-terms) can be
> > described by numbers in long enough series means in my vocabulary:
> > "SOMEHOW", the same as in assigning ALL mental finctionality to the
> > physiological neuronal brain (somehow).  JM
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics                              
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052               
> Australia                      
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Thu Mar 27 2008 - 18:23:05 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST