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.

## Advertising

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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---