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.


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)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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