Le 24-déc.-05, à 02:27, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
As for a name, following the comments of George and John, what about "I^st and 3^rd Person aspects in Computational Logics"?
That is not too bad ... for the title of a paper, but I'm afraid it is too long for a field's name.
Also, strictly speaking, "computational logic" is misleading because people could take it as a form of constructive or effective or algorithmic logic (like computational chemistry is chemistry through algorithm). So, more correct, (and then obviously more ugly) would be "1st and 3rd Person aspects in computationalist logic". Remember that the first Person aspect is not necessarily computational or effective, although it is so, accidentally, for the propositional parts.
Many thanks for trying, and making me realise that the word "theology" is apparently as problematic in English than in French. Actually I am very astonished by that, and even somehow anxious about that. People can understand that Galileo has refuted Aristotle Physics, or even that QM is incompatible with Aristotle theory of substances. But Aristotle is also the first guy who did built a thoroughly scientific (Popper-Falsifiable) theology, and then the comp hyp refutes it, and forces us to go back to Plato and Pythagorus or to some neo-Platonician; mainly Plotinus, because the one who will follow Plotinus will again try to reintroduce some Aristotelian mind/body ideas which are, unlike Plato's and Pythagorus' one) incompatible with the comp hyp or even much weaker hyp.).
I am just trying to find simple word to convey to a general audience what are the logics G and G*. I will say more this afternoon (It is 12h50 am in Brussels) in my reply to Kim.