Brian, 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 restriction. I discuss a bit of it in general vernacular at <http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/uiu05charting.htm> 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. :-) Jamie Rose --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
