On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 04:48:22PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Excellent post Johnatan.
> Of course those who know a bit of AUDA (which I have already explained  
> on the list) know that from the third person self-reference views we  
> have cul-de-sac everywhere ("we die all the times", cf the  
> "Papaioannou multiverses"), and this is what forces us, when we want a  
> theory of observation (which by UDA is a probability or credibilty  
> calculus) to define the probabilities by imposing the absence of cul- 
> de-sac. This is *the* motivation for the new box Bp & Dt.  Dt, by  
> Kripke semantics, is equivalent to imposing the absence of cul-de-sac.  
> Yet, by incompleteness Dt is not provable by the machine, and after we  
> make the addition of the "non-cul-de-sac" principle (Dt), we loose the  
> Kripke semantics. But this is a good news, given that we will have to  
> manage (plausibly) continua of "next observer momen or historiest".

I'm a little confused. Did you mean Dp here? Dp = -B-p

> Apology for those who have not follow the (many) old modal posts, but  
> we will soon or later come back to this. Read Boolos book (and  
> mathematical logic books).
> Bruno


Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to