I have been following the latest very scholarly exchange involving different
logical models in relation to the MWI, however I fail to see how it relates
to my own perception of the world and my own consciousness unless I think
according to those formal systems which I think is unlikely.
Using different logical models to describe possible worlds is interesting
but isn't it true that if the problem of consciousness (as an observer,
and definer, for these worlds) is to be addressed, then the only logic
that matters is the one in my, or in your, own head? Of all these logical
models which one is the "right" one? Are all of them "right?"
When Copernicus formulated the heliocentric system, he didn't go around saying
that a "new" logic had to be used to explain the central position of the
sun. He simply used a physical model. People just had to accept the new paradigm
that the Earth "moves" even though they do not feel the Earth move. Can't
we just accept the fact that the world - and our consciousness - "split"
or "merge" even though we do not feel them "split" and "merge?" It seems
to me that if we define a good physical model, then classical probability
could do the job of formulating the decision theory desired by Wei.
George
- Re: modal logic and possible worlds Bruno Marchal
- Re: modal logic and possible worlds Wei Dai
- Re: modal logic and possible worlds Bruno Marchal
- Re: modal logic and possible worlds Wei Dai
- Re: modal logic and possible worlds Bruno Marchal
- Re: modal logic and possible worlds Bruno Marchal
- Re: modal logic and possible worlds Wei Dai
- Re: modal logic and possible worlds Bruno Marchal
- Re: modal logic and possible worlds George Levy
- Re: modal logic and possible worlds jamikes
- Re: modal logic and possible worlds George Levy
- Re: modal logic and possible worlds Bruno Marchal

