On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/25/2014 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/23/2014 4:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Not "my" consciousness, no. I'm just suggesting that CTM
ultimately relies on some transcendent notion of perspective
itself. IOW, the sensible world is conceived as the resultant of
the inter-subjective agreement of its possible observers, each of
which discovers itself to be centred in some perspective.
Is the sensible world of *possible* observers supposed to include
the whole world. I'm always suspicious of the word "possible".
Does it refer to chance, i.e. many events were possible, I might
have had coffee instead of tea this morning, but only a few are
actual? Does it refer to anything not prohibited by (our best
theory of) physics: It's possible a meteorite might strike my
house? Or is it anything not entailing a contradiction: X and not
X?
Possible in the large sense, is the diamond of the modal logic.
But <> is just a symbol that we use with certain rules of
inference. To be applied it requires some interpretation.
That's the point.
Mathematical semantics provides then the math for describing a lot of
them, including sound and complete in their characterization of some
modal theory.
There are as many notions of possibility than there are modal
logics, and there are many.
I appreciate that you put in your enumeration the "possible" in the
sense of the "consistent" (not entailing A & ~A, or not entailing f).
David used "possible observers" as part of a definition. I don't
know what it would mean for an observer to not entail f. So I think
he had some other meaning (nomological) in mind. But in that case
his definition is somewhat circular.
I will interview correct rational machine, and I will say that a
machine believes A is she asserts A.
To say that they do not assert f means that they are consistent.
Bruno
Brent
That one, consistency, can be defined in arithmetic for all
arithmetically correct machine(~beweisbar('~(0=0)')), and it
happens also that such a definition entails different logics for
the "philosophical" or "physical" variant of it, and this choose
the different modal logics from machines self-references.
Bruno
PS my p-time seems to be delayed, I am still in the 23 february,
gosh!
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
