Le 11-nov.-05, à 13:59, uv a écrit :
> GottferDamnt <gottferdamnt.domain.name.hidden> Said on 10 Nov
>
>>> some branches where you can stay alive, but can you follow the
>>> same branches for an eternity? For example, can you stay in a
>>> box (even if it is not very probable) forever?
>
> Bruno had written on 1/11/05
>
>> I believe that the quantum theory does not allow cul-de-sac
>> branches.
>> I also believe that the Godel-Lob theory of self-reference not only
>> allow cul-de-sac branches, but it imposes them everywhere: from
>> all alive states you can reach a dead end.
> ......
>> The intuitive point here is that you cannot have a first person
>> point of view on your own death: 1-death is not an event, and
>> should be kept out of the domain of verification of probabilistic
>> statements
>
> To me that looks very relevant, and discussions on "quantum suicide"
> are also very frequent, but perhaps in practice the problem of
> actually dying (or indeed not dying) can be bypassed in other ways.
>
> I mention hypnagogic myoclonus as one conceivable means to an
> alternative route.
>
> I may try to blog details sometime soon at
> http://ttjohn.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the link. I disagree, or just misunderstand perhaps, some
point you are making there, but it could be also premature to tackle
them right now. i am "problem driven" and my favorite problem is really
the mind body problem. The original idea here is that I explain you the
relationship between incompleteness and the necessity to distinguish
the first and third person point of view. Apparently you seem to
appreciate category theory, which is rather abstract, and so I think
you shouldn't have problem any with modal logic and their
representation theorems. Now, the "real" important things to grasp for
making clear the way I use modal logic, consists in understanding the
theorem of Solovay. Have you heard about it? It generalizes in some way
the theorem of Godel and the theorem of Lob. it makes precise the
connection between modal logic and the logic of arithmetical reference.
If you are interested I could try to say more, and that could perhaps
helps me to present the result I thjink I got. I do have underestimated
the novelty of mathematical logic for the physicists. I know physicists
who have a rather good understanding of the incompleteness theorems,
but I realize they does not know the completeness theorems, which is
indeed the background making what logic really consists in. Other
people asks me similar questions so that I will try to post better
synthetical summary of what I have try (at least) to communicate.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Fri Nov 11 2005 - 11:47:57 PST