George wrote:

>Sorry Russell I am not good with acronyms. 
>In a message dated 99-09-30 22:37:01 EDT, you write:
><< the QTI issue. >>
>I assume it stands for Quantum Theory Interpretation???

QTI = Quantum Theory of Immortality, see James Higgo initial and
basic post on the subject:

I would like to add something about LIP (Leibnitz Identity Principle) :
I accept it in non-modal (extensional) context. For exemple if you tell me
that a = 3, I accept that a + 1 = 4.

But I don't accept it in modal (intensional) context. For exemple if you 
me that a = 3, I will NOT infer that "Jean knows that a + 1 = 4", for it 
possible that although a = 3, Jean doesn't know it.

What I have said in my last post follows from the fact that the 1-person
and 3-person notion introduces modal contexts.

Listen, people, I don't belief you can keep talking about worlds and
observers without using a minimal amount of MODAL LOGIC.
I told you that before.

For exemple, I wanted to make remarks on the "cul-de-sac" thread, but 
I have abandon the idea because without MODAL LOGIC the post would 
have to be much too long.

More generaly we should perhaps  agree on a little set of fundamental 
to work with as a solid base for our evolving discussion.

Here is my suggestion: 

 1) The MWI of QM (Dewitt and Graham).
 2) Mmmmh... I will think about a good and simple book on modal logic ...
    I think CHELLAS' book (I mention it before) is the best one.
 3) I wait for your suggestions ... we should not propose more than 5 


Reply via email to