Jamie, before you and correspondents enter that 50,000 line write-up about the 'impressions' of concepts you mentioned and asked for, a warning:

## Advertising

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 On 3/8/08, Brian Tenneson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mar 6, 1:46 pm, James N Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Brian, > > > > Thank you for starting this thread on Logic and > > Contemporary science/math/physics. > > > > I am amazed that there isn't more written on it, > > since in my own approach - which comes at a TOE > > by General Systems Theory analysis - I saw early > > on that a profound relation exists from Platonic > > times to now - and includes QM, Boolean thought > > and even Fuzzy Logic and complexity mathematic. > > > > The current problem is that no one has put them > > all into a kladistic house - comparing relations and > > definitions. > > > > Before I jump into a random exposition of my thinking, > > what are your impressions about logic, math, materiality, > > et al.? > > > > Jamie Rose > > > I will respond to this when I have more time tomorrow but, basically, > I am a Platonist or Spinozist and I think logic as being of > metamathematics (the math about math). Furthermore, Fuzzy Logic is > simply a generalization of logic. I do believe that FL (Fuzzy Logic) > has the potential as providing interesting examples of mathematical > structures that Tegmark mentions in his recent Mathematical Universe > Hypothesis paper. > > You see a lot of logic, ie, metamathematics, in his "beyond the > standard model" papers, and I think there is a connection to the Greek > schools of thought. > > While the MUH is just a hypothesis, it is the one I personally guess, > for want of better term, is correct. > > The issues is that experimental evidence has not (and can not?) > confirm or deny the MUH. To me, that is not a problem. I think we > can tell about the universe in science, philosophy, and mathematics. > Just different parts and different questions are better suited to each > discipline. > > However, if the MUH is true, then the deepest nature of the universe > is a mathematical inquiry rather than a physics inquiry. > > Any other questions, like for clarification about my ideas, and > especially if you spot errors in my reasoning regarding the link in my > first post, please feel free to pull no analytical punches as that's > the only way to improve. > > > Thanks > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---