Russell Standish wrote
>I claim to understand it, and believe it demonstrates a necessity for >first person indeterminancy in a 3rd person determinate universe... > >It doesn't rest on knowledge of modal logic... > >Modal logic is used to derive a form of Schroedinger's equation from >the particular COMP hypothesis put forward by Bruno. As best I can >work it out, Bruno shows that an appropriate formalisation of >knowledge generates a logic system that has been identified by someone >else as "Quantum Logic". > >Unfortunately, I failed to see how knowledge could be formalised, Remember that one of the most beautiful thing in the AUDA is that knowledge is only "meta-formalised", and that no machine can recognize her "definition of knowledge" (only G* can do that). It is linked to the Benaceraff reconstruction of Lucas argument ... >although I appreciate (after some discussions with Bruno) that there >is a long tradition of doing this sort of thing going back to the >Ancients. I am also not familiar with literature of "Quantum Logic" to >know precisely what the result entails. > >However, I do know that starting with a very similar (although I would >venture to say marginally more general) hypothesis, I was able to >generate the concrete form of Quantum Theory, without the need of >modal logic, rather just some elementary notions of set theory and >probability. I don't know what this result really entails - it could >be that QM, as a theory, has very little content! We should discussed that. I am not convinced by your derivation of the linear feature of QM. There is also part of geometry you take for granted. But we are on similar track, no doubt. >This, as you know, is written up in "Why Occam's Razor", which has now >been rejected from its 4th journal, without much of a concrete >criticism. I am appreciating, with full force, Kuhnian dynamics! > >I should mention, parenthetically, that I do assume the Anthropic >Principle, something which Bruno has misgivings about. But, so far, >this has been the only real criticism of the work. I just use the Turing-Tropic Principle instead, and I avoid bayesian probability and its undefined reference frame. Bruno
