----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 3:53 AM
Subject: Re: Quantum Immortality = no second law

>Alastair Malcolm wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Günther Greindl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Alastair argues in his paper that everything logically possible exists
>>> (with his non arbitrariness principle) but, while initially appealing,
>>> it leads to the question: what is logically possible? In what logic?
>>> Classical/Intuitionist/Deviant logics etc etc...then we are back at
>>> Max's all possible structures.
>> The focus of my paper is on theories in principle fully describing
>> universes
>> (or u-reality). The term 'logically possible' is intended to contrast
>> with
>> 'physically possible' and refers to descriptions (theories) being
>> internally
>> non-contradictory (more in note 4 in my paper). Classical logic is
>> usually
>> intended in these kinds of cases, and I can't actually see from what I
>> know
>> of other logics how they might relevantly extend the range of possible
>> inhabitable universes beyond those describable by formal systems
>> operating
>> according to classical logic.
>Have you considered para-consistent logics, c.f. Graham Priest "In

In terms of theories accurately representing worlds, I have more or less
discounted 'A AND NOT-A' approaches (this is not the same as superposition,
which should be able to be modelled within the local physics) - I have
assumed that a fundamental fact about a world cannot be both true and not
true. (For any other possible modes of application of paraconsistent logics
hopefully my comments at the start of section 4 of my paper apply.)


Paper at: http://www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/pa01.htm

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