On 03 Nov 2015, at 18:33, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/3/2015 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Nov 2015, at 11:23, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 2/11/2015 7:10 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Nov 2015, at 06:17, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Which is just your idiosyncratic way of saying that we have to
apply a projection operator.
No, we have to recover the "projection operator" from the
computationalist quantization. It is a math problem.
So do it.
That has been the subject of the PhD thesis. I can explain all the
detail, but you will need to invest more time in computer science/
mathematical logic. It is not a simple problem. UDA took a flash in
my childhood, AUDA took 30 years of works (in part because some
people makes me doubt of some results or conjecture I made for
years, until I saw them solved and published by others, to which I
refer. The problem now is that those interested in metaphysics seem
to be not enough patient to do the math. Philosophy attracts often
people who dislike a lot math and "exact" science. My whole main
point is that with computationalism, the mind body problem is
translated into a problem in math.
And the solution is given by the
[i]<i>p, p sigma_1, with i = 1, 2, 3, and [1]p = []p & p, [2]p =
[]p & <>t,
and [3]p = [2]p & p (and [] is Gödel's beweisbar, and <>t = ~[]~t
= ~[]f).
The solution to what? And what does it mean "given by".
The solution of the problem of recovering a projection operator in the
mechanist context, and here in the quantum logic that you obtain by
inverting Goldblatt modal quantum logic from the sigma_1 arithmetical
proposition.
Roughly speaking, you recover an arithmetical interpretation of some
quantum logic by interpreting the atomic p by []<>p in a modal logic
obeying the axioms of the modal logic B (normal modal logic + the
axiom p -> []<>p, + []p -> p), by a result by Goldblatt.
The [i]<i>p obeys to a similar logic than B (B without the
necessitation rule + a "Löbian" corresponding axioms, derived by
Vandenbusch for [3]<3>p), so we get a quantum logic on the sigma_1
sentences (which play the role of the finite pieces of computations)
with "[]<>p" playing the role of the "projection operator", which
plays the role of the "yes-no" experiences in the UD measure problem.
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 [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/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 [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/d/optout.
