# Re: ASSA vs. RSSA and the no cul-de-sac conjecture was (AB continuity)

On 12 Feb 2009, at 22:12, russell standish wrote:

>
> 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

Fair question, given my sometimes poor random typo!

In the so called "normal" modal logic, that is those system of modal
logic containing the formula K

B(p->q) -> (Bp -> Bq)

and which are closed for both the modus ponens rule (from p and p->q
you can deduce q)  and the rule of necessitation (from p you can
deduce Bp) , well, if you remind the definition of the Kripke
semantics, you can see that

Bp & Dp

is equivalent with

Bp & Dt

Bp is true in the world alpha, means that p is true in all the worlds
Beta accessible from Alpha.

Dp is indeed equivalent to -B-p, it means that B-p is false, so it is
false that in all the worlds Beta, accessible from Alpha, -p is true
in them. So it means that there is world, accessible from Alpha,
where  -p is false, that means that there exists  a world where p is
true.

Now if you have in a world, your world if you want,  Bp & Dp, you have
at least access to a world in which p is true, and thus you have
access to a world where t is true, given that t is true in all worlds.
So you have Bp & Dt.
The inverse: now you have in a world Bp & Dt.  Thus you have Bp and
Dt, of course, and by Dt you have access to a world where t is true.
But you have also Bp, so you know that in all the accessible world,
from your world you have p, so you have Dp.

A good and important exercise is to understand that with the Kripke
semantics,  ~Dt, that is B~t, that is Bf, that is "I prove 0=1", is
automatically true in all cul-de-sac world. It is important because
cul-de-sac worlds exists everywhere in the Kripke semantics of the
self-reference logic G.

If you interpret, if only for the fun, the worlds as state of life,
then Bf is  really "I am dead".

Bruno

>
>
>>
>> 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)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                       hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >

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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to