Let me think aloud,
Plotinus's terms:
Primary Hypostases:
1) the ONE
2) the Divine Intellect
3) the all-soul
Secondary hypostases:
4) Intelligible Matter
5) Sensible Matter
With the UDA, you can already try
Primary Hypostases:
1) truth
2) third person communicable truth
3) first person truth
Secondary hypostases:
4) probability on computationnal consistent states/histories
5) probability on computational consistent true states/histories
With the lobian interview the self-referential correct intellect is
given by the modal logic G, and the self-referential truth (including
the non provable one) is given by G*. This gives the following
interpretation of a weaker version of UDA in arithmetic (comp is not
yet needed); the hypostases are with B for Godel's purely arithmetical
provability predicate (Beweisbar):
Primary Hypostases:
1) arithmetical truth (p)
2) provability (Bp)
3) provability-and-truth (Bp & p)
Secondary hypostases:
4) provability-and-consistency (Bp & ~B~p)
5) provability-and-consistency-and-truth (Bp & ~B~p & p)
But, thanks to incompleteness, and the fact that machine as rich as PA,
can reflect that incompleteness, some hypostases' discourses are
divided in two parts: the true, and the communicable (third person
provable) one. We get 8 hypostases:
Primary Hypostases:
1) arithmetical truth (p)
2) provability (G) -------- 2') the same, but described by G*
3) provability-and-truth (S4Grz, curiously enough it does not divide)
Secondary hypostases:
4) provability-and-consistency (Z)-------- 4') same, but described by
G* (= Z*)
5) provability-and-consistency-and-truth (X)-------- 5') same, but
described by G* (X*)
Until now, we have not yet introduced comp in the interview.
With B = Beweisbar; comp can be translated by p -> Bp. This formula
characterized the Sigma1 formula (Visser Theorem), that is the RE sets,
the Wi, the accessible states by a Universal Machine (with CT).
Let V = G + (p -> Bp)
We get
Primary Hypostases:
1) Sigma1 arithmetical truth (p)
2) provability (V) -------- 2') the same, but described by G* (V*)
3) provability-and-truth (S4Grz1, curiously enough it does not divide)
Secondary hypostases:
4) provability-and-consistency (Z1)-------- 4') same, but described by
G* (= Z1*)
5) provability-and-consistency-and-truth (X1)-------- 5') same, but
described by G* (X1*)
The logical of the physical proposition should emerge at least in Z1*.
But actually the whole of S4Grz1, Z1*, and X1* define, at least
formally, a notion of arithmetical quantization.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Aug 20 2006 - 10:01:47 PDT