George,
I am afraid there is a point which I should still comment in your post.
>> >> BM:But then it looks you don't like any more the 3-person discourse,
>> why?
>>
>>GL: The adoption of the first person as a "frame of reference" (my
>>terminology) implies the ultimate relativization.
OK, but then why are you looking for the ultimate relativization?
It *is* the recent discovery that physics in some way seems to appear also
with S4GRz
that is the formal capture of the informal first person I talk in the last
post.
I thought that should be impossible, for S4Grz is related to
antisymmetrical frame,
and the quantum logic should be symmetrical. But someone pointed that I
should have prove that
impossibility by induction, and quickly I have been lead to
counterexemples, and then Quantum Logics
(re)appeared where I did not suspect it to appear, It makes possible your
"ultimated" first person view.
But even such singling out of the first person makes only sense here only
through the
acceptance of the "ultimate" third person arithmetical truth and then the
interview of the
universal machine. It is related to a choice
of methodology due to my willingness of being a "modest scientist", saying
hopefully
clear and verifiable propositions...
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 10:52:37 PDT