On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 6:10:17 PM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 01:57:43PM -0800, [email protected] > <javascript:> wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 8:43:32 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > > > I don't necessarily accept those, but I'm willing to consider them > as a > > theory of everything and see what they predict. One thing you often > > repeat is that you can derive QM from them. So what is that > derivation? > > > > > > I've requested that (approximate) derivation several times for > motivational > > purposes, but to no avail. > > I am doubtful he can do it. He just keeps saying to read his papers. AG > > > > The answer has been stated a number of times - various modal logics > appear by applying the Theatetus "trick" from the definition of > knowledge □p & p to the modal logic of provable and consistent > statements □p & ◇p, and then restricted to computable statements Σ₁ > gives rise to a modal logic Z₁ which satisfies the basic axioms of > quantum logic. > > The best explanation of it (not so technical) is put forward in > Marchal's "le secret de l'amibe", translated as "The Amoeba's Secret" > in English. > > Interesting, but a little underwhelming IMHO. Basically, he enumerates > a number of different model logic structures related to knowledge, > provability, consistency and belief, as well as restricting things to > the computable domain, and ends up with something resembling the > abstract skeleton of quantum mechanics extracted by von Neumann and > Birkhoff. I never quite understood why that particular modal logic was > the one that was supposed to describe matter. > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] > <javascript:> > Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
I am interested in modal logics for experience - "experiential modalities", or modalities of experience (ME): *The Subject of Experience* (Galen Strawson) [ https://books.google.com/books?id=HgvxDQAAQBAJ ]. I see the modal logics in the "Universal" articles as providing perhaps a basis for the "arithmetic" of ME but not its "substance" - its mathematical semantics but not its material semantics. - pt -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
