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

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 

Reply via email to