George,

I am afraid there is a point which I should still comment in your post.

>> BM:But then it looks you don't like any more the 3-person discourse, why?

GL: The adoption of the first person as a "frame of reference" (my terminology) implies the ultimate relativization.

OK, but then why are you looking for the ultimate relativization?

`It *is* the recent discovery that physics in some way seems to appear also with S4GRz`

that is the formal capture of the informal first person I talk in the last post.

I thought that should be impossible, for S4Grz is related to antisymmetrical frame,

and the quantum logic should be symmetrical. But someone pointed that I should have prove that

impossibility by induction, and quickly I have been lead to counterexemples, and then Quantum Logics

(re)appeared where I did not suspect it to appear, It makes possible your "ultimated" first person view.

that is the formal capture of the informal first person I talk in the last post.

I thought that should be impossible, for S4Grz is related to antisymmetrical frame,

and the quantum logic should be symmetrical. But someone pointed that I should have prove that

impossibility by induction, and quickly I have been lead to counterexemples, and then Quantum Logics

(re)appeared where I did not suspect it to appear, It makes possible your "ultimated" first person view.

`But even such singling out of the first person makes only sense here only through the`

acceptance of the "ultimate" third person arithmetical truth and then the interview of the

universal machine. It is related to a choice

of methodology due to my willingness of being a "modest scientist", saying hopefully

clear and verifiable propositions...

acceptance of the "ultimate" third person arithmetical truth and then the interview of the

universal machine. It is related to a choice

of methodology due to my willingness of being a "modest scientist", saying hopefully

clear and verifiable propositions...

Bruno

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