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

Reply via email to