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

## Advertising

> > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---