Le 28-avr.-08, à 21:46, Brian Tenneson wrote :

>
> I will be updating this as time progresses.  All versions including
> the current and only version, 00-00-04 can be found here:
> http://www.universalsight.org/conference_abstract/
>
> The current and only version is 00-00-04 which can be downloaded
> directly in pdf format here:
> http://www.universalsight.org/conference_abstract/00-00-04.pdf
> The file size is 47 kb.



There, you write:

<<Conjecture 1. The completeness of gamma_l will provide either 
plausibility
argument for or proof of the computable reality hypothesis (CRH).
Conjecture 1. The completeness of gamma_l will provide either 
plausibility
argument for or proof of the computable reality hypothesis (CRH).>>


  I have already presented an argument (an easy consequence of the 
Universal Dovetailer Argument, which is less easy probably) showing 
that:

-  CRH implies COMP
-  COMP implies the negation of CRH
-  Thus, with or without COMP (and with or without the MUH) the CRH 
does not hold.

-  Unless "I" am the whole reality. (which I doubt).


Brian wrote also:


> I was skimming though a book by Roberto Cignoli, Itala D'Ottaviano, and
> Daniele Mundici called Algebraic Foundations of Many-Valued Reasoning.



"What I tell you three times is true"
"What I tell you three times is true"
"What I tell you three times is true"

This is how, if I remember well, Mundici begun a talk I assisted on 
Many Values Logic in Brussels years ago. A very interesting talk. I am 
not sure how it bears on our topics though. (Mundici was alluding to 
Lewis Carroll's Hunting of the Snark" of course).

Reichenbach has been the first logician to try to use MV logic for 
solving the conceptual problem raised by Quantum Mechanic, without not 
much success (description and critics can be found in the book by Max 
Jammer, ref in one my thesis). yet I do agree that Mundici works has 
some formal bearing on the possible quantum logic, and I don't want to 
discourage you to dig on that issue. Algebraïc physics can be a very 
interesting topic per se, but unless you give some reason to use such 
approach I'm afraid it can easily be used to hide conceptual problems.

Your abstract is indeed very ... abstract. It uses elaborate 
mathematics without providing much motivation, and it put the mind body 
problem under the rug. OK, I know it is a tradition (in science) since 
more than 1500 years .... Perhaps you take the identity thesis as 
granted? In that case you have to consider a *very* strong non-comp 
hypothesis. Why not indeed.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to