system
A chat on 4chan
human
In fuzzy logic a statement has a probability of being right and wrong, while still allowing some calculation with truth tables / belief network propagation.

But you seem to aim more at perspectivism. A lot of statements could be improved, by adding 'to me' after the statement.

> The sun goes up to me

> The sun goes down to me

These statements are both true, for people on other sides of our planet. Hilbert was a very big shot in mathematics, and did not allow intuition or relativism. When he, and Aristotle before him, said: ' 'Not A and A' can not be correct at the same time, and if 'Not Not A' then necessarily 'A'' he kinda meant it, and everyone who disagreed was relegated to the state of paria or Sufi mystic.

Mathematical logic like that could have benefited from the Maybe Logic of Robert Anton Wilson. It places every statement in the context of a specific personal reality tunnel. 

> God is True

can be a true statement for those with experiences and mind sets/beliefs while being wrong for others.

You are probably a shiz, but to speak with the Principia Discordia: You are not a shiz because what you are saying makes no sense, but because what you are saying is true (and vast majority of people do not expand their mind to know what they themselves want, let alone think about what others want, they lack compute or imagination to think of your statement as true).

The Principia Discordia almost word for word follows your possible truths. If you have never read it, now is a clear sign to do so, because whatever it is, it is messing with your subconsciousness already, in that case, best to let it speak and bubble to the surface. Or you store all this insecurity energy for when you have to cross your Abyss.

1/2
gpt
Just wanted to add that fuzzy logic is not probability. When you say in fuzzy logic something like 'the water is 0.5 hot' you aren't saying there is a 50% probability of the water being hot, but rather that it has a truth value of 'hot' of 0.5. You can see this better by realizing that many propositions have truth values for opposing terms, e.g. 'the water is 0.6 hot and 0.4 cold' -- this would be equivalent to saying 'the water is somewhat warm', i.e. there's not a probability of 0.6 of the water being hot and 0.4 of it being cold (that would mean that ultimately it would be cold or hot, with no in-between).