Marchal wrote:

> 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.

I assume that duplication and merging is an ongoing process. For more precision on
first and third person see conjugation below.


> 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.

We might as well take the bull by the horns! Let's be precise and expand the
English language. We can also expand French.

Here is a conjugation that would have tuned white my teacher's hair. :-)

When a first person singular singunal is duplicated you get a first person
singular plenal (I -> Is - Pronounced Eyes)
When a second person singular  singunal is duplicated you get a second person
singular plenal (Thou -> Thous)
When a third person singular  singunal is duplicated you get a third person
singular plenal (He/She -> Hes/Shes)
When a first person plural  singunal is duplicated you get a first person plural
plenal (We -> Wes)
When a second person plural  singunal is duplicated you get a second person plural
plenal (You -> Yous)
When a third person plural  singunal is duplicated you get a third person plural
plenal.(They -> Theys)

Singunal refers to one instance in the plenitude. Plenal refers to several
instances.

Example of use:
Is am an joker (in most worlds, eyes am....)
Yous are unlikely to be Belgian, more likely to be Chinese.
Hes most probably had one winning lottery ticket.
Wes are citizens of every country of earth.
Yous (Western Europeans) have not all formed the EU.
Theys (Aliens) have landed on the earth.

> >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.

Yes I agree. It is a comp entanglement, a loss of mutual degree of freedom in the
branching pattern.
My branch is your branch.
Mi casa es su casa. :-)


> 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.

OK! no problem with that.

> >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 yourself said that G* is the trace of the UD program, the cone in the
Plenitude. (actually double cone to represent a logical past and a logical future.

> 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).
>

Interesting.


>
> >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 ...

You are right. The cone is a logical branching cone. in which the probability
measure propagate from branching point to branching point.

>
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal

Reply via email to