At 09:45 12/01/05 +0000, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
It sounds like we may be using 'logics' for two different purposes. For me, basic logic is intended here (that of syllogisms and 'if it is true that p, then it cannot be the case that p is false');
This is a little ambiguous. But I will take it as your acceptation of (at least) intuitionist basic logical system.
any ambiguities between logics in directly describing a (physical-type) world would tend to be due to their particular application areas (for example temporal logic would not be geared to worlds with certain alternatives to time);
And this will depend on some non-logical axiom you will postulate togeteher with the background logic.
others tend not to have this use at all (for example modal logic is more about consistency/proveability/necessity, or worlds in general). Again, in the same vein as my reply to Hal F, if a logic / formal system cannot describe an entity, it is either due to an inherent restriction (compared to other logics / formal systems), or else the entity is totally beyond our comprehension (in a formal sense).
OK.
Is it still the case that the best english version of the relevant ideas are from your earlier posts to this list, as identified in your URL? I shall try to look at them at some stage.
Perhaps better is my SANE paper, you can download it from http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
I show that IF we are Turing-emulable THEN physics is, in a testable way,
the geometry of the border of our ignorance. Where by "our" I refer to "us" the
Loebian Machine.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
