- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Günther Greindl <guenther.greindl.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:16:24 +0200

Dear Bruno,

*> Yes. The comp "intelligible matter" hypostases give the modal logic
*

*> corresponding to quantum logic, except that I loose the necessitation
*

*> rule.
*

*> The significance of this remains to be seen of course.
*

Ok I get it. I will reread your papers :-) (too much new stuff in one

reading)

*> In a nutshell, the restriction to the sigma_1 sentences *is* the
*

*> translation of the comp hyp in the language of a Lobian machine.
*

*> Why?
*

*> Because you can characterize a Turing Universal Prover Machine by the
*

*> fact that she can prove all true Sigma_1 sentences. So Turing
*

*> Universality can be defined by the modal formula p -> []p, for p
*

*> sigma_1. A lobian machine is not only universal, but "knows" that she
*

*> is universal, i.e. she can prove all the formula p -> []p for p
*

*> Sigma_1. Adding the axiom p -> []p to the logic G, gives the
*

*> self-reference logic of the computationalist lobian machine. The
*

*> Universal Dovetailer is equivalent to the set of true sigma_1 sentences
*

*> together with their many proofs.
*

*> This is explained at the end of most of my papers, but needs some
*

*> amount of knowledge of recursion theory.
*

Ah OK; I am going to do some recursion theory this semester. (the Rogers

book :-)

Could you recommend something on modal logic?

*> Hmmm... I would say that 3rd person white rabbit appear when there are
*

*> too much universes with aberrant histories. Too much universes with too
*

*> much talking white rabbits having clocks in their hands and saying "too
*

*> late, too late ..."?
*

Yes that is what I meant.

*>> but I think
*

*>> they are also aware of first person white rabbit, as they discuss the
*

*>> Boltzmann brain quite literally as a "brain" in some papers - which
*

*>> just
*

*>> oozes away after some time or immediately after "cogito ergo sum".
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> I don't understand. (In general the first person is forgotten or
*

*> assimilated to third person constructs like brain through some identity
*

*> thesis, this cannot work by the Movie Graph argument or by Maudlin's
*

*> Olympia: we have discuss this).
*

Now I don't understand; I am aware of Maudlin's Olympia, though not of

your movie graph argument.

How do you mean the first person is forgotten?

Best,

Günther

Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:16:24 +0200

Dear Bruno,

Ok I get it. I will reread your papers :-) (too much new stuff in one

reading)

Ah OK; I am going to do some recursion theory this semester. (the Rogers

book :-)

Could you recommend something on modal logic?

Yes that is what I meant.

Now I don't understand; I am aware of Maudlin's Olympia, though not of

your movie graph argument.

How do you mean the first person is forgotten?

Best,

Günther

-- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna guenther.greindl.domain.name.hidden http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/ Blog: http://dao.complexitystudies.org/ Site: http://www.complexitystudies.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---Received on Wed Apr 02 2008 - 14:17:01 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST
*