Hi Bruno,
You mentioned in a previous mail “the duality between Bp and Bp &p”. Could
you elaborate on this? Is it a Stone or a Pontryagin duality? (these are
different!)
Also, are there any restriction on the content of the proposition p? Could
a model of a possible world be a p? I ask this because so far you seem to only
consider p that are tautologically true (such as 2+2 = 4) and thus are
trivially independent of observer notions. What about the contents of Observer
Moments? Could they be p?
I suspect that the in the “&p” (and p is true) is where the concreteness,
that I have referred to before, lies hidden; for in situations where the truth
or untruth of a proposition that involves possible worlds (not just the truth
of arithmetic statements) there is a requirement of a concrete realization
between the observer of that world and the possible world. This latter idea is
explicit in the Everett and Rovelli Interpretations. (Concreteness is the
property of being “this and not anything else” that is invariant to point of
view.)
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
