Levy wrote:

>An example of first person plural is for example myself thinking about the >"many other myselves" in other branches having made other choices of >professions/wives/stock market etc... Mmh ... That's all first persons, or third persons imo. Remember that first person plural occurs when populations of individuals are duplicated. Thosee are introduced just to show that comp indeterminacy can be "tested" by individuals inside multiplied populations, like in quantum experimentation (with MWI). >All person conjugations (singular and plural) have a plural in the Plenitude. >We should invent a word other than plural to denote the concept.of >Plenitude-Plural. How about "plenal?" Any suggestion? You lost me. Here. >The concept of continuity between first and third person is not difficult to >accept if one is willing to adopt a relativistic point of view, where the >frame of reference is taken as the degree of coupling of the observed object >with the observer's own existence. This makes more sense. >First person events are those that occupy the same frame of reference as the >observer. Sure, but what is a frame of reference? Perhaps a closure for a sort of comp entanglement. Without "the measure", it will be hard to define a reference frame or just a local neighborhood. >Third person events do not occupy the same frame of reference. Well, first and third apply better to discourses than to events, in my mind. >"Frame of reference" refers to the degree of coupling with conditions >affecting existence of observer. This makes sense, although the very notion of coupling should be defined without any physicalist notion in my approach. >Occupying the same frame of reference also means sharing the >same past and future cones (G* - your terminology). G* really? What does it have to do with past and futur? You give me the opportunity to mention another quite impressioning result by Goldblatt. He shows that IF you interpret the modal box by "It is now and will be always the case that", and if you model time by four-dimensional Minkowskian geometry, with "event" y coming after event x just when a signal can be sent from x to y at a speed at most that of speed of light, THEN the modal sentences valid in this structure are precisely the theorem of the modal system S4 + (<>[]p -> []<>p), and with the usual rule (NEC and MP). That modal system proves sentences valid in 2 or 3 dimensional Minkowskian space as well, but this is not true if you delete the "is now" in the interpretation of the box. In that case it is possible to find sentences distinguishing 2 and 3 dimension, and you can find sentences falsified by going at the speed of light. And this gives hope, perhaps, for finding an arithmetical interpretation, not of quantum logic, like in my thesis, but of an interpretation of a sort of relativistic quantum logic (yet to be discover!). Robert Goldblatt: "Dioderean Modality in Minkowski Space Time", page 113 in his 1993 book (ref. in my thesis). >One could view this continuum in probability as a cross section >of this cone with each point on that cross section forming a >probability distribution. >High probability would occur near the center of the cone, and >low or zero probability at the edges. Remember that I have neither time nor space a priori ... Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal