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 reading) > 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? Best, Günther -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/ Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/ Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
