Dear George,
I was missing your input lately, I like this one a lot.
2 remarks:
1./ Logic in 'your', 'my', or anyody else's mind may be different. Does it allow to
restrict it from being "any"? Any may be right in their own rite. We may not like 'some'.
2./ The world just HAD to accept Copernicus and his conclusions....
But was Copernicus right? (Partially: yes, of course).
(A step forward does not make it a complete novelty. Important and salutable, but
also debatable - especially when even newer ideas coincide).
Thanks for the words of reason.
John MIkes
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: modal logic and possible worlds

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

Reply via email to