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 

    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 



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to