Re: Leibniz Semantics

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu Mar 29 12:24:14 2001

George Levy wrote:

>Let's just make sure we agree upon our objectives. Did we agree then that,
>the
>proof we are striving for is the derivation of Planck's constant for purely
>philosophical arguments? Or is it the full Schroedinger equation in all its
>details? I still maintain that whoever derives the actual digits of that
>constant (in MKS units for example) will *at least* deserve a Nobel or
>better.. *At present,* it seems so impossible to me, that, I believe the
>prize should be given by a prestidigitation organization. :-). It will
>certainly be instructive to go through that process.


It is just fair you recall our goal. I agree with the Nobel prize or
even better :-)
I will be very glad too with the prestidigitation prize, although
it should really be given to Arithmetics instead!

Now, remember (part of) our dialog:


>GL: It shows that COMP entails the general shape of SE but not SE proper.

>BM: We will appreciate this later. UDA entails ``necessary
>(COMP entails SE proper)",
>independently of the fact that perhaps only 10^100 working
>mathematicians would be needed during 10^100 years for finishing the
>derivation. But yet, philosophically it is a point that COMP entails
>that.
>Now, it happens I isolate with my UTM interviews a
>non trivial part of the derivation, perhaps. You will judge.


It is just a *non trivial part*, and only "you" can really judge.
It is still possible that the open problems, which remains, need the
10^100 mathematicians! (this is the more pessimistic view on my work)

And it is useful to remember that the understanding of the derivation
is enhanced by the understanding of the UDA. After all, the
derivation is just an arithmetical translation of the UDA TE.

Modal logic is not really fundamental. The (godelian) logic of
self-reference is more important. It just happens that modal logic
will help us in speeding-up the consistent UTM interview.
(And this thanks to Godel, Lob, Solovay, Boolos, Goldblatt,
Visser (mainly)).
Nevertheless it will be necessary to undertand how classical logic
classifies arithmetical truth. Only after that, we will be able to
tackle first person point of view and begin to derive SE.
And, as I say, even classical propositional is not so obvious. It is
the reason why we must be careful and we must not try to go to
quickly.
So please, don't hesitate to slow me at any point (as a Plato heaven
citizen I am infinitely patient, but as a modest little human being
I forget that, sometimes, and (I know myself) I will, without doubt,
accelerate my talk without realizing it!)).

Of course, don't dream too much on the Planck Constant Decimal!
In any case, thanks for trying to share some logical adventure.

Now my problem is "how to explain Kripke semantics without drawings"?
Without drawings !!! Mmmm... I will try, soon.

Any comments or supplementary explanations are welcome of course.
Any skeptical comments on the use of logic in philosophy are
wlecome too. (That happens!).

Bruno
Received on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 12:24:14 PST