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 firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.