Your inquiries about FL is an uncharted but important one.
I'd like to suggest though that your approach is too
conventional and 'consistency' is not the ultimate
criteria for evaulating it's connection with validity
or more importantly - feasability - in context with
'logic' - and mathematical value judgements.
I've taken a wholly different/radical approach which
has been productive. "Existential Probability" is a
strong and broader base to use and in general is
an umbrella-space for all logic systems. I call the
most generalized form "Stochastic Logic". It has the
interesting attribute of placing FL and QM on a par,
in the scheme of things, with direct connection with
Boole, and Aristotelian logic before-that.
In historical framing, it can be seen that the earliest
logics were limited-specific-condition logics and that
each new step was toward 'improved generalization'.
The leap that FL makes is removing the boundaries of
the probability space and pushing toward a 'logic'
system that copes with Cantorian infinities and
transfinites. It pushes towards plural-criteria
logic (what you've indicated as akin to Multi-modal).
It is a critically important step that out-paces
all the conventional analysis. Think of it as the
tool to developing utile computation/description
methods for 'logic' evaluation of the (so far)
intractible "many bodied" problem. Complexity math
is one way of coping with -some- factors of many-bodied
systems, but even that math hasn't been fully scrutinized
or (logically) evaluated for kladistic characteristics
yet. I've looked some of the equation forms and found
some interesting things going on in 'recursion' equations
that relate to breaking away from 'zero to one' boundary
I discuss a bit of it in general vernacular at
Feel free to contact me directly at integrity @ prodigy.net
(remove the spaces) if you'd like to discuss in more detail.
I made an effort several years ago to get Lotfi Zadeh speaking
with Herb Simon (just before he died) in the hopes that traditional
and leading edge probability theories could find commonality.
They did talk some but nothing definitive or fruitful came
from it - mainly because each had too much vested interest
in separate academic venues. And because second and third
generation 'probabilists' were so dedicated to their particular
stances on 'how the math "should" be done', instead of opening
themselves to combining the methodologies into a grander
schemata - it's going to take someone or someones with -your-
sensibility and intuitions to make it happen. :-)
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