Dear Bruno,

> Yes. The comp "intelligible matter" hypostases give the modal logic 
> corresponding to quantum logic, except that I loose the necessitation 
> rule.
> The significance of this remains to be seen of course.

Ok I get it. I will reread your papers :-) (too much new stuff in one 

> In a nutshell, the restriction to the sigma_1 sentences *is* the 
> translation of the comp hyp in the language of a Lobian machine.
> Why?
> Because you can characterize a Turing Universal Prover Machine by the 
> fact that she can prove all true Sigma_1 sentences. So Turing 
> Universality can be defined by the modal formula p -> []p, for p 
> sigma_1. A lobian machine is not only universal, but "knows" that she 
> is universal, i.e. she can prove all the formula p -> []p for p 
> Sigma_1. Adding the axiom p -> []p to the logic G, gives the 
> self-reference logic of the computationalist lobian machine. The 
> Universal Dovetailer is equivalent to the set of true sigma_1 sentences 
> together with their many proofs.
> This is explained at the end of most of my papers, but needs some 
> amount of knowledge of recursion theory.

Ah OK; I am going to do some recursion theory this semester. (the Rogers 
book :-)
Could you recommend something on modal logic?

> Hmmm... I would say that 3rd person white rabbit appear when there are 
> too much universes with aberrant histories. Too much universes with too 
> much talking white rabbits having clocks in their hands and saying "too 
> late, too late ..."?

Yes that is what I meant.

>> but I think
>> they are also aware of first person white rabbit, as they discuss the
>> Boltzmann brain quite literally as a "brain" in some papers - which 
>> just
>> oozes away after some time or immediately after "cogito ergo sum".
> I don't understand. (In general the first person is forgotten or 
> assimilated to third person constructs like brain through some identity 
> thesis, this cannot work by the Movie Graph argument or by Maudlin's 
> Olympia: we have discuss this).

Now I don't understand; I am aware of Maudlin's Olympia, though not of 
your movie graph argument.

How do you mean the first person is forgotten?


Günther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna


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

Reply via email to