Le 09-mai-05, à 01:38, Russell Standish a écrit :

The simplest description can be found in Max Tegamark's paper "Is an
Ensemble theory the ultimate TOE?". He uses the term "frog
perspective" for 1st person, and "bird perspective" for 3rd person.

I agree more or less. Tegmark, like many physicists forget the "uncommunicable (subjective, private, personal) aspects of the 1-person. That's why he missed the hardness (and impossibility) of attaching the experience to one story in one (mathematical) universe. So he missed the emergence of physics from something like ALL mathematical structure (which by the way is too big and unnecessary once we postulate the comp hyp).

Bruno Marchal has also written quite a bit about it in Chapter 5 of his (Lille) thesis. This is unfortunately is not as accessible as Tegmark's paper (not only is it written in French, which is not particularly a problem for me, but it is also written in the language of modal logic, which I'm only slowly gaining an appreciation of its power and utility).

From what I understand of the chapter, 1st person communicable phenomena is
described by a logic G, and incommunicable by G*\G. The square box
operator [] represents knowledge, ie []p means one knows p. The
interpretation of [] is basically that p is true, and that I can prove
it. So this is essentially what we might call "mathematical"
knowledge. How this relates to "physical" knowledge, which a la Popper
is more "not proven false", I don't really know.

3rd person phenomena on the other hand is identified with Z, where the
box operator corresponds to "proving p and not being able to prove p
is false", ie basically the collection of self-consistent formal
systems. Z seems remarkably similar to Max Tegmark's original proposal...

Mmh.. It's a little bit the contrary G and G* will be 3 person. S4Grz will be the first person knower and at the time will be ... subjective time (like in Brouwer consciousness theory). Z1* will be the observer.
No hurry. I'm rather buzy now, but of course we will come back on this ...
People can read the post on this list which I refere in my url (below).

I'm still rereading these chapters, and I'm sure I'll have some more questions on the subject other than "Where does Popper fit in?"

Excellent question. The basic idea is that if physics is derivable from comp, well, let us derive it, and then let us compare with empirical physics. If comp implies F = Ma^2, it would be reasonnable to conclude comp is refuted!



On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 02:54:48PM -0400, Jeanne Houston wrote:
I am a mere layperson who follows your discussions with great interest, so forgive me if I'm about to ask a question whose answer is apparent to all but me. I am very familiar with the "first person" and "third person" concept in everyday life and literature, but I am a little unclear about the specific meaning that it holds in these discussions; I feel like I'm missing something important that is blocking my understanding of how you are applying first and third person to your work in terms of multiverses and MWI. Could someone please direct me to some links that could help me better understand these perspectives as they apply to the discussions. Thank you.


-- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----


Reply via email to