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.

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).


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

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.


Reply via email to