>I'm certain that some things can be 100% true and others 100 % false, and my
>opinion may even be correct, but even if so it doesn't follow that all
things
>have this all or nothing property. Which slot did that particle go through?
>If you insist that my answer be non fuzzy then there are only 4 possible
>answers I can give you, right, left, both, and neither. Unfortunately each
>of these 4 answers is equally unsatisfactory.
>
>Is the statement "the particle went through the left slot" 100% true?
>No it's not true, but the strange thing is that its logical negation is
>not true either.
IAN: The question/answer is fuzzy, yes! But the fuzziness
measures a disjunction between (1) our questions, words,
and concepts and (2) physical reality. Number 2 is, in
and of itself, true by 100%, but the match between 1
and 2 may or may not be true by 100%. That's my read.
The question "Which slit did the photo pass through,"
is an "artificial" construct that says, "It must have
passed through one or the other." The mapping between
that concept and reality is not a one-one mapping, but
the mapping of reality to reality is a one-one mapping.
Where truth is a one-one mapping, reality is 100% true.
Notice that to map A to A is a de facto "zero mapping."
Notice also that "zero mapping" is an "identity function."
**************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________
ZERO-IDENTITY MAPPING http://www.erols.com/igoddard/matrix.htm
______________________________________________________________