Re: modal logic and possible worlds

From: George Levy <>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 20:06:30 -0700

jamikes wrote:

> I was missing your input lately
Yes, I am very busy preparing for a patent bar. But I still read the
list. I don't have too much time to dig deep into the references so I
can't comment intelligently when the going gets too technical.

> 2 remarks:
> 1./ Logic in 'your', 'my', or anyody else's mind may be different.
> Does it allow to
> restrict it from being "any"? Any may be right in their own rite. We
> may not like 'some'.
The arbitrariness of "my," "your" or anybody's own mind point to the
need for the relativistic approach which I have been advocating. The
frame of reference here is the logical system residing in the observer's
mind. It may not be the type of formal system which has been discussed
in the list. There may be a need to develop some kind of "fuzzy" logical
system for human mental processes corresponding to the formal systems
already in existence. As far as I know Fuzzy Logic has not been
developped to the same extent as the branches of logic that have been
discussed in the list.

In any case, a totally different approach involves using physical
models, just like Copernicus and Einstein did. An interesting conjecture
is that the "physical model" approach and the "logical model" approach
will converge or even will be proven to be equivalent.

> 2./ The world just HAD to accept Copernicus and his conclusions....
> But was Copernicus right? (Partially: yes, of course).
> (A step forward does not make it a complete novelty. Important and
> salutable, but
> also debatable - especially when even newer ideas coincide).
I agree with you here. I have been somewhat imprecise.


> ----- Original Message -----
> From:George Levy <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 7:39 PM
> Subject: Re: modal logic and possible worlds
> I have been following the latest very scholarly exchange
> involving different logical models in relation to the MWI, however
> I fail to see how it relates to my own perception of the world and
> my own consciousness unless I think according to those formal
> systems which I think is unlikely.
> Using different logical models to describe possible worlds is
> interesting but isn't it true that if the problem of consciousness
> (as an observer, and definer, for these worlds) is to be
> addressed, then the only logic that matters is the one in my, or
> in your, own head? Of all these logical models which one is the
> "right" one? Are all of them "right?"
> When Copernicus formulated the heliocentric system, he didn't go
> around saying that a "new" logic had to be used to explain the
> central position of the sun. He simply used a physical model.
> People just had to accept the new paradigm that the Earth "moves"
> even though they do not feel the Earth move. Can't we just accept
> the fact that the world - and our consciousness - "split" or
> "merge" even though we do not feel them "split" and "merge?" It
> seems to me that if we define a good physical model, then
> classical probability could do the job of formulating the decision
> theory desired by Wei.
> George
Received on Sat Aug 17 2002 - 20:07:57 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST