On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2015 11:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We might defined nomological inconsistency by [i] <i>p & [i] <i>~p,
for [i] being a material hypostase.
?? What role does i play in the above? Are you assuming i implies p?
i is for 1, 2, 3 in
[1]p = []p & p
[2]p = []p & <>t
[3]p = []p & <>t & p = [2]p & p
The quantization makes sense only in the material hypostases (and,
unexpectedly, in the "knower").
Bruno
Brent
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
