Le 18-nov.-05, à 20:39, Stephen Paul King a écrit :

Dear Bruno,

Are you claiming that the communicable part is to the non-communicable
part as the classical is to the quantum?

Oops, no, sorry. My fault. I was trying to be short. You can see Godel, Lob, Solovay discovery as the discovery that the *classical* logic of self-reference is (already) divided into two parts, corresponding to the provable and the unprovable. At their propositional levels, Solovay, in 1975, showed that the modal logics G and G* capture soundly and even completely the *provable* part of the logic of self-reference and the *true* part, respectively. The purely unprovable (but true) part is then given by G* \ G (the set difference of the theories). "Provable" means provable by some fixed sufficiently rich machine, or theory. Now observation and knowledge are defined in the logics of self-reference, i.e. by transformation of G and G*, and so are each multiplied by two. Actually and amazingly for the knower (the first person) G and G* give the same logic, like if the first person conflates truth and provability. But for the notion of observation, G and G* give again different logics, so that the observer can distinguish communicable observations ("physical facts") and non communicable observations (sensations, I would argue). But to be honest, the quanta (or the shadows of the quanta) seems to appear at the G* level, confirming "quantum physics" is a first person plural notion, i.e. based on bets made by multiplication/differentiation of populations of individuals; like in Everett (QM without collapse) where superpositions are contagious to the observers. To sum up, the difference provable/unprovable or communicable/incommunicable is inherited by all the transformations of G, except the one which gives the stronger notion of the first person. (I guess this one *is* the solipsist who lives in each of us, the one who needs some education or encouragement for learning to listen to the "solipsist" living in the others).



Reply via email to