Hi Brian,
Le 10-avr.-08, à 04:35, Brian Tenneson a écrit :
Hi Bruno,
It's not a new idea, no. However, I find the classical logic
restriction to make set theories with a universal set as unnatural
(e.g., some automatically sacrifice choice) as one that uses FL might
seem to others.
Hi Bruno,
It's not a new idea, no. However, I find the classical logic
restriction to make set theories with a universal set as unnatural
(e.g., some automatically sacrifice choice) as one that uses FL might
seem to others. I mainly want to know if Russel type paradoxes are
completely
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
Hi Brian,
Your idea of a universal set, in case it works, would indeed meet one
of the objection I often raised against Tegmark-like approaches, mainly
that the whole of mathematical reality cannot be defined as a
mathematical object. Of course this is debatable, and a case can been
made
I have been following this discussion and I wanted to respond to this
point because I fail to see why this is such a damning criticism of
the MUH. How is in inconsistent to affirm the existence and reality of
mututally exclusive axiom sets? I realize how that sounds so I would
like to amplify
I consider your post rather insightful at first glance and worthy for
further study. Therefore, a delay may occur between now and a
substantive reply.
On Mar 23, 8:46 pm, James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Brian Tenneson wrote:
Thanks for your reply. I have a lot to say, so let me try
Thanks for your reply. I have a lot to say, so let me try to rate my
breath, as it were.
1. It is nice to hear a human say this is uncharted territory. Since
I am not in a graduate school now and have no affiliation, my research
resources are limited compared to having free access to basically
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 03:37:27AM -0700, Brian Tenneson wrote:
begin their argument for the non-existence for the universe
Definition: To contain means insert something most people would
accept here. The notation and word for 'is contained in' is
isin.
Thing and exists are undefined or
Brian Tenneson wrote:
Thanks for your reply. I have a lot to say, so let me try to rate my
breath, as it were.
1. It is nice to hear a human say this is uncharted territory.
.
.
I think my main improvement, while not really coming close to really
answering my question, was
Hi again...
In +this+ post, I am attempting to encapsulate all previous posts on
sci.logic and here.
In a nutshell, my work in FL is going to hopefully provide the
beginnings of an answer to what is the universe by at least making a
plausibility case for some universal fuzzy set, in conjunction
My main
goal is that I seem to need to show that such a fuzzy set theory, one
with a universal set, is ++consistent relative to ZFC++ or at
least
prove that that's not possible (ie, prove a generalization of
Russell's paradox).
It is proved in Paraconsistent Logic:
From your link.
Does 'any theory' in the following quote include theories that involve
logics with every MV-algebra as their truth set and every set of
syntactical axioms or is this just any theory using binary logic?
Could Russell have proved anything in the context of even
paraconsistent
Does 'any theory' in the following quote include theories that
involve
logics with every MV-algebra as their truth set and every set of
syntactical axioms or is this just any theory using binary logic?
my guess is: just any theory using binary logic.
I would tend to think that most mathematicians and even more
physicists and even more engineers and even more laymen would say that
'just' is a huge, huge understatement.
However, from the perspective of Non-Classical logic (be it
paraconsistent or fuzzy), that sentence was perfectly formulated,
By Fuzzy Logic (FL), I mean such things as mentioned in these links
(perhaps I should have said Many-Valued Logic or Non-classical Logic):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-valued_logic
The structure of the truth set is not necessarily the interval [0,1];
it could be an MV-algebra, perhaps
Le 08-mars-08, à 10:18, Russell Standish a écrit :
And can one avoid Russell's paradox in Fuzzy Logic?
Many paradoxes leads to chaos when (re)interpreted in Fuzzy Logic.
There is a paper by Mar and Grim:
Mar, G. Grim, P. (1991) Patterns and chaos: New images in the
semantics of.
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
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
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 09:18:33PM -0800, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I previously tried cutting and pasting the text instead of giving a
link no one apparently went to before replying because the formatting
was off. So I will do that because it seems that would be prudent. I
figured it out.
On Mar 6, 1:46 pm, James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Brian,
Thank you for starting this thread on Logic and
Contemporary science/math/physics.
I am amazed that there isn't more written on it,
since in my own approach - which comes at a TOE
by General Systems Theory analysis - I saw
I previously tried cutting and pasting the text instead of giving a
link no one apparently went to before replying because the formatting
was off. So I will do that because it seems that would be prudent. I
figured it out. (I'm not computer guru)
sci.logic
Groups Alerts
Create a
Brian,
Thank you for starting this thread on Logic and
Contemporary science/math/physics.
I am amazed that there isn't more written on it,
since in my own approach - which comes at a TOE
by General Systems Theory analysis - I saw early
on that a profound relation exists from Platonic
times
By trolling, I mean that by the third post in my thread, nothing there
is directly connected to any ideas in my original post.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this
That is digression, not trolling. According to Wikipedia:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who
posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an
online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the
intention of baiting other users
Purest attention-seeking behaviour. Playground antics. Talk about
what I wanna talk about!!!
The people in this forum have been having a conversation that has
lasted over a decade.
We get Tegmark on this list occasionally. He, like you, needs to
acquaint himself more with the core
25 matches
Mail list logo
