First off, I would like to apologize for being over-reactionary in mislabeling labeling a digression as trolling. I seem to have shot myself in the foot with that remark.

## Advertising

Second, I will have more to say about specific posts later today, but I would like to clarify what I mean by Fuzzy Logic (FL), and it's connection to Classical Logic (eg, Model Theory). On that note, fuzzy logic truth sets need not be [0,1] but could be anything algebraically like a Boolean Algebra. Specifically, the truth set could be what's known as an MV-algebra, which could have some order. Chang's Theorems relate MV-equations to equations that hold in [0,1], making the comparison to [0,1] quite relevant, actually, but without (seemingly) realizing it. I suggest readers interested in what I mean by Fuzzy Logic see this paper which I referenced, and the references of the paper I am linking: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/444507.html PDF version: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/22478/http:zSzzSzwww.cs.cas.czzSzvvvvedcizSzhajekzSzstrls2.pdf/a-set-theory-within.pdf Recall from an earlier post that I am pushing question (2) on page 8 in reference to a universal fuzzy set axiom and this in relation to Tegmark's MUH. Perhaps some universal fuzzy set +is+ the universe in some sense. Also, for my ME statements (mutual exclusivity), I am suggesting that "locally" ME holds and maybe sometimes ME does not hold[***], within the context of Tegmark's MUH. It seems apparent that ME is true in the parallel we inhabit. With my D+( ) notation above, I was just trying to formalize a conjecture along the lines of "ME seems locally true". Discussion of what I mean by designated truth degrees can be probably found in the references to the paper I just linked to. Also, I suggest seeing parts of this: A treatise on many-valued logics by Siegfried Gottwald http://worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/44162540 Also, this might be worth trying for background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-valued_logic [quote] The first known classical logician who didn't fully accept the law of the excluded middle was Aristotle (who, ironically, is also generally considered to be the first classical logician and the "father of logic"[1]), who admitted that his laws did not all apply to future events (De Interpretatione, ch. IX). [/quote] MV-algebra (truth sets are these sorts of things, basically): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV-algebra I just wanted to clarify what I mean by F.L. before launching into how F.L. might interact with the MUH in the sense of a "strong fuzzy universal set" being the universe. [***] I'm wondering, not knowing about QM much, how in some parallels the Copenhagen interpretation could be correct and in others, the Everett interpretation could be, in light of the MUH---if different +fundamental equations+ of Physics are true in a Level 4 multiverse scenario, then are different +interpretations+ of the equations correct in different parallels? Perhaps this paradox (and all paradoxes) could have a very (unsatisfying?) resolution in the context of ME not being universally "true"? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---