I assume by hypostase, you mean the word hypostasis, the plural of
which is hypostases.

My concise Oxford dictionary defines hypostasis as "underlying
substance", as opposed to attributes which are unsubstantial.

Are you claiming a system of logic (eg G or S4Grz1) is a "substance"?
And if so, what do you mean by that? I have no conception.

The formula p->BDp is your "little abstract Schroedinger equation" is
it not? So you can now show that S4Grz1 proves the LASE, but also has
the advantage of having a Kripke frame, so provides a temporal


On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 02:58:53PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Well, you should not infer this from the fact that I suspect "string 
> theories" appears with the 4th hypostases, given that I am rather proud 
> of having isolated them.  If you look to "Conscience and Mecanisme" and 
> to the Lille thesis you will see that at that time I was (wrongly) 
> believing that physics could not occur but in the 4th and 5th 
> hypostases. I thought that S4Grz1 collapses. Since then I have been 
> able to prove that the 3rd hypostase does not collapse (under the comp 
> restriction) but that they already defines an arithmetical quantization 
> (that is: proves the main "physical modal formulas: p -> BDp and Bp -> 
> p), and I still don't know if this is a good new, except that it shows 
> that the pure first person (the "soul") has already a foot in "Matter". 
> But that soul's physics is like a pure physics completely detached of 
> any "background dependence", and at first sight it is a good place for 
> something resembling "Loop Quantum Gravity".
> The fourth and fifth hypostases, nevertheless, gives the only physical 
> modalities which split through the G/G* distinction so that only them 
> can be used for relating the non communicable qualia with the sharable 
> quanta. Also they predicts many many exotical geographies, and 
> currently, through the Moonshine Mystery + modular speculations, are 
> closer to the strings theories.
> To be sure the "experimental physicist in me" (if there is any) has no 
> competence for judging Loop versus String arguments. On the contrary, 
> the many hypostatic nuances forced by the quantization of 
> incompleteness (defined by the p-> BDp + inverse Goldblatt transform) 
> makes me willing to believe that both Loops and Strings are correct, 
> but does not address the same problem.

*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to