Le 14-déc.-05, à 01:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
In the multiverse, only other people end up in dead ends. Although
from a third person perspective every entity in the multiverse could
be said to exist only transiently because at every point of an
entity's history we can say that there sprouts a dead end branch of
zero extent, from a first person perspective, these branches cannot
by definition ever be experienced.
If the laws of physics are contingent on the continuation of
consciousness, it is very well possible that a very large majority of
branches are very short and dead ends. In other words every nanoseconds
we suffer a thousand deaths through events which are perceived to be
unlikely due to the apparent stability of the physical laws, events
such as proton decay, beta capture, nuclear fusion due to nucleus
tunneling, etc...
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I know you have solved the "only if" part of following exercise:
(W, R) is reflexive iff (W,R) respects Bp -> p.
I will come back on the "if" part later.
Have you done this: showing that
(W,R) is a "Papaioannou multiverse" iff (W,R) respects Dt
-> D(Bf).
Note that this question is a little bit academical. I have already
explain how I will choose the modal logics. Actually I will not choose
them, I will extract them from a conversation with the machine (and
its "guardian angel"). This will leave no choice. It will happen that
the formula
Dt -> D(Bf) will appear in the discourse machine; indeed perhaps some
of you know already that this is just the second incompleteness of
Godel, once you interpret Bp by "the machine proves p", coded in some
language the machine can use.
George
