Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Dear John, JM: 'evolutionary' is 'relational' anyway originated in 'human mind capabilities' - D.Bohm: there are no numbers in nature. (Not arguing against Bruno, who IMO stands for nature is IN numbersG) Well yes, that is the interesting question. But if you say that there are no numbers

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

John, my way to the number reality was convoluted, but in looking back maybe two books could give you the central idea: Lakoff and Nunez: Where does mathematics come from, which argues that numbers arise from evolutionary considerations (materialist in tenor, Platonia etc ruled out). The

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Dear Bruno, Some of these books I have already read (Boolos), You mean read with pencil and paper? Well no *grin* - it was the adopted textbook in one of the courses I took, and I did the assigned exercises, but now flipping through the book I realize I must go back to it again - more than

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Günther, *please see inserted in JM: lines* John On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Günther Greindl guenther.grei...@gmail.com wrote: John, my way to the number reality was convoluted, but in looking back maybe two books could give you the central idea: Lakoff and Nunez: Where does

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Kim, Russell I appreciate your concern and propositions. I have a friend who thinks about making a book with a subsubsection only (in french), and I think that you could make hundreds of books from Conscience et Mécanisme. And I believe this could give money to the publishers, and the

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Kim, beware of your heroic offer! I read some books in both the original and translated formats and KNOW that they are different. Not only has the translator his 1st person understanding of WHAT to translate, the words convey the new language's ambiguity for the reader's OWN 1st person

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Hi Mirek, I would certainly like to read the book - I managed a bit the Lille thesis (with my French), but it was hard going and I think I only understood the stuff because we have had many discussions here on the list - so it was easy to translate. I am not so sure I can manage the

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

On 31/01/2009, at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I've also tried to dig through both Bruno's thesis with the help of google translator. It works for a while but soon one hits a wall with a difficult sentence/paragraph which is hard to understand even if it stands as the author inteded -

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

I would certainly like to read the book - I managed a bit the Lille thesis (with my French), but it was hard going and I think I only understood the stuff because we have had many discussions here on the list - so it was easy to translate. I am not so sure I can manage the huge Bruxelles

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

John, Who is self-referencing, or even acknowledging self-reference? Gödel and All. It is a major discovery of the 20th century: a completely clear notion of third person self-reference. A first person self-reference theory follows naturally, accepting Theaetetus' definition of

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Dear Bruno, thanks for the good references, I will integrate them on the resource page (or on a separate page). Some of these books I have already read (Boolos), others are on my list (Rogers). Smullyan's Forever Undecided is unfortunately out of print, but I am on the lookout for used

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Bruno, theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. Rereading Conscience et Mécanisme I realize Russell Standish was right, and that book should be translated in english because it contains an almost complete (self-contained) explanation of logic (for the physicists), including

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

On 28 Jan 2009, at 18:07, Günther Greindl wrote: Bruno, theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. Rereading Conscience et Mécanisme I realize Russell Standish was right, and that book should be translated in english because it contains an almost complete (self-contained)

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Dear Günther, thanks for the good references, I will integrate them on the resource page (or on a separate page). Some of these books I have already read (Boolos), You mean read with pencil and paper? Machine's theology has no more secret for you? Have you read the Plotinus paper?

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Günther and Bruno, am I sorry for not being ~30-40 years younger! I could start to study all those excellent books in diverse kinds of logic (what I missed) and could even have a chance to learn all those advancing ideas over the next 30 or so years... Makes me think of it: 30-40 years ago I WAS

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Günther, AUDA is based on the self-reference logic of axiomatizable or recursively enumerable theories, of machine. Those machines or theories must be rich enough. In practice this means their theorems or beliefs are close for induction.This is the work of Gödel and followers, notably

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

I will think about it. Somehow, the best layman intro to UDA and AUDA are in this list. The first 15-step version of UDA was a reply to Russell Standish a long time ago. UDA is the logical guide to AUDA, which is just a deeper second pass on UDA. AUDA *is* UDA explained to the dummy, with

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Goldblatt 1993, Mathematics of Modality this book is available online: http://standish.stanford.edu/bin/detail?fileID=458253745 mirek Goldblatt, Mathematics of Modality

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Hi Günther, The paper is not online, but I found it in this book which is at our University Library, maybe interesting also for other people: Goldblatt, Mathematics of Modality

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

On 16 Jan 2009, at 22:04, Günther Greindl wrote: Hi all, the question goes primarily to Bruno but all other input is welcome :-)) Bruno, you said you have already arrived at a quantum logic in your technical work? Yes. The hypostases, with p restrict to the Sigma-1 sentences (the

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

On 17 Jan 2009, at 07:52, Brent Meeker wrote: Günther Greindl wrote: Hi all, the question goes primarily to Bruno but all other input is welcome :-)) Bruno, you said you have already arrived at a quantum logic in your technical work? May I refer to the following two paragraphs?:

COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Hi all, the question goes primarily to Bruno but all other input is welcome :-)) Bruno, you said you have already arrived at a quantum logic in your technical work? May I refer to the following two paragraphs?: We can read here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog/ The

Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

Günther Greindl wrote: Hi all, the question goes primarily to Bruno but all other input is welcome :-)) Bruno, you said you have already arrived at a quantum logic in your technical work? May I refer to the following two paragraphs?: We can read here: