On 7/4/2019 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You may be able to access your subjective time, but does it provide a
measure...and if so what is it?
We get three candidates for the logic of the measure one, given by the logic of
the intensional variant of G ([]p):
"The logic of measure one" is not a measure. A measure has to take
different values. A measure that is just one or zero is worthless.
[]p & p
[]p & <>t
[]p & <>t & p
With “[]” = Gödel’s beweisbar, and p is any sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (it
models the Universal dovetailing).
If that logic verifies some technical condition (described by Von Neuman in
some papers), the logic should provides the entire probability calculus, as it
has to do if Mechanism is correct.
"As it has to do if Mechanism is correct" is like Stalin saying the USSR
is most wonderful nation on Earth if communism is correct. It's not even
an argument for the logic providing the probability calculus. It's an
assertion of hope.
G and G* splits both []p & <>t and []p & <>t & p. So we get 5 logics, but
normally, only the starred logic should provides the measure, because it depends on the true structure
made by the 1p experiences, and not the experienced experiences.
?? What about the unexperienced experiences?
Our future depends non locally of all our existing “preparation” or
“reconstitution” that exists in the (sigma_1) arithmetic (the universal
dovetailer).
Te fact that we get already quantum logics (classical and intuitionist)
But you don't. You don't even get probability measures.
Brent
is an invitation to proceed. As we get different quantum logics, it would be
interesting and very informative to see which one fits with nature.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/592c52de-4cbc-1083-f22d-6d0077fcc712%40verizon.net.
