Le 07-nov.-05, à 13:23, uv a écrit :
Bruno said on FOR List(Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality (was Re:
That necessity is implied itself by the incompleteness phenomena,
but that is technical (ask me on the everything-list if interested).
Ok I am interested. Also (separate query) - How does your
approach tie in with that of Heather and Rossiter (if at all)
A larger quote is given below for others (if interested).
I don't know about the work of Heather and Rossiter, except some thought on quantum computation I just found by Googling. Perhaps you could elaborate a little bit.
For the first query it would help me to know if you know about the relation between Godel's incompleteness theorem and modal logic (I think about Solovay theorem). I guess no.
I have no more the time today to explain, but I will do so tomorrow. In the meantime perhaps you could take a look on the paper here:
You can skip the UDA for going directly to the presentation of the "lobian machine".
The key technical point will be that although "provable(p)" is equivalent with both "provable(p) & p" and "provable(p) & consistent(p)", actually the machine cannot prove those equivalences, so we can expect that "provable(p)", "provable(p) and p", and "provable(p) and consistent(p)" will obey to different (modal) logics.
I realize also I should explain a little bit more the "completeness theorem" (by Godel too), which seems to be unknown by most physicists, and which is needed to understand the relation between" consistent(p)" (which abbreviates ~provable(~p) and as such is a purely syntactical notion) and the "existence of a world where p is true".
Thanks for your patience, don't hesitate to tell me this is already "chinese" ...
I give a larger quote from
<x-tad-smaller> <<I believe that the quantum theory does not allow cul-de-sac branches.
I also believe that the Godel-Lob theory of self-reference not only
allow cul-de-sac branches, but it imposes them everywhere: from all
alive states you can reach a dead end.
The Universal Dovetailer Argument shows that the physics (which has no
dead ends) should be given by the self-reference logics (with reachable dead end everywhere).
I have been stuck in that contradiction a very long time ...
... until I realized the absolute necessity of distinguishing the first and third person point of views. That necessity is implied itself by the incompleteness phenomena, but that is technical (ask me on the
everything-list if interested).>></x-tad-smaller>