On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:36:15PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 04 Feb 2014, at 06:49, Russell Standish wrote: > > >On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:40:59AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >>Then explain why you don't read the UDA, or why you don't read AUDA, > >>which is the same thesis, but no more using thought experiences. > >>AUDA was for the mathematicians who told me that they are not > >>interested in cognitive science or philosophy of mind, where such > >>thought experience is common. > >> > > > >If UDA and AUDA are equivalent in some sense, how do you get the FPI > >conclusion from AUDA? > > In AUDA we get only the case of the "probability one", by Bp & Dt, > on p sigma_1. > > Why? > > Well that is what I am explaining, but I need Liz solving some > puzzles before :) >
I understand that Bp&Dt gives one of von Neumann's quantum logics, but it still seems an enormous jump from there to the FPI, or to call the Deontic relation a Schroedinger equation, even a little abstract one. But I'll wait until you bring Liz up to speed. I'm enjoying lurking over the exercises, even though I only have enough time to skim them. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
