On 17 Dec 2012, at 20:27, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
Why just 8? I would have expected every possible "person points
consistent with MWI. Richard
There is 8 main types of points of view given by:
Bp & p
Bp & Dt
Bp & Dt & p
I count 5. Where are 6, 7 and 8?
Still sleeping near the heat system in the classrom :)
1 is divine
2 splits into G and G*. Thay split into a terrestrial person and a
3 is both terrestrial and divine (the soul does not split)
4 splits, 5 splits (there are really four material hypostases, but
quantum appears apparently only on the divine part of the person,
normal with the infinite origin of matter, by the 1p-indeterminacy).
This sounds much more like a mind/body or a natural/supernatural or a
terrestrial/divine two-world characterization than MWI.
You recommended reading SD (salvia divinorum) case studies. I have
not read all 1575 case studies available or all of Andrews book, but
so far they all also seem to reinforce a two-world reality. Could you
relate these 8 incarnations to a MWI multiverse for us/me?
The multi-reality, with CTM, is the "many computations".
The computations are realized in arithmetic through the Sigma_1
sentences (Ex<decidable-property (x, y)>), together with their proofs
(but this does not play a role at the propositional logical level).
The 8 hypostases gives a computationalist general theory of a person
or any machine in front of truth, and I model comp in the language of
that machine by restricting p to the sigma_1 sentences.
The 8 hypostases are just the logic of self-references and intensional
variants: they are a theology, or a psychology concerning a person (in
the simple case). The primary one: "God, Intellect, Soul", and the
secondary one, "matter one and matter two". This gives 8, as the
Intellect and the two matters splits into terrestrial and divine
(where here terrestrial means provable by the machine and divine means
true, in the structure (N,+, *)).
The "MW" things is more in the arithmetic richness, around the
computable and the non-computable.
Comp leads to a many dreams interpretations of arithmetic. The sigma_1
sentences have the property that p -> Bp, so their truth entails their
provability, and it corresponds to the proof of the existence of
machine relative states, always relatively to some other universal
numbers, or relatively to the initial system (arithmetic). The sigma_1
complete arithmetical reality is a universal dovetailing.
I think that if we are machine, it is absolutely undecidable to decide
if ontologically there is anything more than that, as the inside view
of this necessarily appears much more complex.
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
For more options, visit this group at