What I mean by "math class" is that, for example, in our system, the one we very much feel we are in right now, math class reveals that 2+1=3. The question is, do math classes in parallels have to be the same as our math class? What is the rationale for thinking "yes"? Thinking the answer is "yes" is precisely like imagining a geocentric universe. It's logic-centric. A logic described by human logicians with their own swing on things. What if human logic is not universal; what if in some parallels, 2+1 is not =3?
The uber math class is the same for all parallels, I think, but in this grand system there are uncountably many systems embedded within. (Parallel = System.)
I realized that some interesting things happen when analyzing the statement S which stands for "All rules have exceptions." As it turns out, from just analyzing S, we can conclude that the rules of a system are not more than sets of true statements about that system. Also, S is NOT in itself a rule.
I wonder if other phrases in English sound very much like rules but, technically, are not rules.
Is my (possibly obscured) definition of "rule" even close to appropriate? I mean, nothing's wrong with a definition but maybe what I have said has nothing to do with actual rules.
The truth of a system is relative. No system need work like any other system. All rules have exceptions. I don't think we can avoid semantics for very much longer.
