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

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 18:24:37 +0200

At 11:04 04/06/04 -0400, John M wrote:

*>Bruno, do we have an agreed-upon identification "what" to call an
*

*>observer? I may heve missed it on the list, if yes. Your post below speaks
*

*>about the topic, but I don't see some conclusion: is it the unformalizable
*

*>first person concept, is it upon formal, or nonformal considerations? Is
*

*>the essence of an 'observer' unresolved and so hard to involve it in
*

*>activities for conclusions?
*

*>
*

*>I mean a short, concise plain language identification.
*

OK, from the UDA and its arithmetical translation, an (atomic) physical

observable yes-no proposition

is "just" a true arithmetical sigma_1 sentence ( i. e. with the shape "it

exists a number n such that P(n)" with F(n) decidable (= UD accessible),

explicitely provable (= true in all consistent extensions) and

explicitely true in at least one consistent extension. If you "quantize" p

by []<>p, that is sum up on the world where you survive (comp immortality)

you get the "measure 1" logic. It remains open exactly which sort of

quantum logic we get.

The "sensible observer" is the same + the truth of p.

Let me summarize the theaetetical variants, understanding could come later :)

1) Independently of comp (!)

The scientific discourse = []p

The first person discourse = []p & p

The observer discourse = []p & <>p

The sensible observer disc. = []p & <>p & p

This gives 4 logics (G, S4Grz, Z, X), x 2, because of G/G* distinction,

minus 1, because

S4Grz* = S4Grz. 7 logics.

2) with comp you must add the axiom p -> []p (= the modal form of the

arithmetical UD accessibility, I call it "1" for sigma_1: indeed EnP(n) ->

[]EnP(n))

That gives 8 new logics: G1, S4Grz1, Z1, X1, G1*, S4Grz1*, Z1*, X1*

Minus 1, because I conjecture (S4Grz+ p->[]p)* = S4Grz+ p->[]p.

*>
*

*>In my (non-physics) verbalizing I tried lately to identify an observer
*

*>with something receiving (maybe responding to) any topically relatable
*

*>information (not the 'bit' of course).
*

Mmmhhhh......

*>Very close to my "cop-out" for consciousness of a decade ago.
*

Don't hesitate to remind links or to summarize in a post.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 12:22:49 PDT

Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 18:24:37 +0200

At 11:04 04/06/04 -0400, John M wrote:

OK, from the UDA and its arithmetical translation, an (atomic) physical

observable yes-no proposition

is "just" a true arithmetical sigma_1 sentence ( i. e. with the shape "it

exists a number n such that P(n)" with F(n) decidable (= UD accessible),

explicitely provable (= true in all consistent extensions) and

explicitely true in at least one consistent extension. If you "quantize" p

by []<>p, that is sum up on the world where you survive (comp immortality)

you get the "measure 1" logic. It remains open exactly which sort of

quantum logic we get.

The "sensible observer" is the same + the truth of p.

Let me summarize the theaetetical variants, understanding could come later :)

1) Independently of comp (!)

The scientific discourse = []p

The first person discourse = []p & p

The observer discourse = []p & <>p

The sensible observer disc. = []p & <>p & p

This gives 4 logics (G, S4Grz, Z, X), x 2, because of G/G* distinction,

minus 1, because

S4Grz* = S4Grz. 7 logics.

2) with comp you must add the axiom p -> []p (= the modal form of the

arithmetical UD accessibility, I call it "1" for sigma_1: indeed EnP(n) ->

[]EnP(n))

That gives 8 new logics: G1, S4Grz1, Z1, X1, G1*, S4Grz1*, Z1*, X1*

Minus 1, because I conjecture (S4Grz+ p->[]p)* = S4Grz+ p->[]p.

Mmmhhhh......

Don't hesitate to remind links or to summarize in a post.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Received on Fri Jun 04 2004 - 12:22:49 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST
*