Le 11-nov.-05, à 13:59, uv a écrit :

GottferDamnt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Said on 10 Nov

some branches where you can stay alive, but can you follow the
same branches for an eternity? For example, can you stay in a
box (even if it is not very probable) forever?

Bruno had written on 1/11/05

I believe that the quantum theory does not allow cul-de-sac
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 intuitive point here is that you cannot have a first person
point of view on your own death: 1-death is not an event, and
should be kept out of the domain of verification of probabilistic

To me that looks very relevant, and discussions on "quantum suicide"
are also very frequent, but perhaps in practice the problem of
actually dying (or indeed not dying) can be bypassed in other ways.

I mention hypnagogic myoclonus as one conceivable means to an
alternative route.

I may try to blog details sometime soon at

Thanks for the link. I disagree, or just misunderstand perhaps, some point you are making there, but it could be also premature to tackle them right now. i am "problem driven" and my favorite problem is really the mind body problem. The original idea here is that I explain you the relationship between incompleteness and the necessity to distinguish the first and third person point of view. Apparently you seem to appreciate category theory, which is rather abstract, and so I think you shouldn't have problem any with modal logic and their representation theorems. Now, the "real" important things to grasp for making clear the way I use modal logic, consists in understanding the theorem of Solovay. Have you heard about it? It generalizes in some way the theorem of Godel and the theorem of Lob. it makes precise the connection between modal logic and the logic of arithmetical reference. If you are interested I could try to say more, and that could perhaps helps me to present the result I thjink I got. I do have underestimated the novelty of mathematical logic for the physicists. I know physicists who have a rather good understanding of the incompleteness theorems, but I realize they does not know the completeness theorems, which is indeed the background making what logic really consists in. Other people asks me similar questions so that I will try to post better synthetical summary of what I have try (at least) to communicate.



Reply via email to