[bruno]
> 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.
[uv]
I like the mind body problem too
[bruno]
>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.
[uv]
the simpler and clearer the better from my viewpoint.
[bruno]
> 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.
[uv]
I understand that "Solovay's theorem is so significant because it
shows that an interesting fragment of an undecidable formal
theory like Peano Arithmetic -- namely that which arithmetic
can express in propositional terms about its own provability
predicate -- can be studied by means of a decidable modal logic,
GL, with a perspicuous possible worlds semantics." As such
it should be very relevant, I most certainly agree
- but how does it relate to "quantum suicide" ?
[uv]
I could not work out how it relates to quantum suicide and first
or third persons in your papers "mechanism and personal
identity" or "amoeba, planaria and dreaming machines" or
"Computation,Consciousness and the Quantum" or "The Origin of
Physical Laws and Sensations" but the logic of the matter has to
be considered, as you say.
[bruno]
> 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
[uv]
Anything you can add on quantum suicide seems interesting to me.
In particular, where does the difference between death and loss
of consciousness fit in, for example?
[uv]
And does it make all that much difference in that scheme whether
a person is PERMANENTLY removed from the system or just
REMOVED FOR A SPACE. There are a lot of ways that can
be done, possibly with very different parameters. (e.g. like in
Parfit's conjectures, which involved identity in even very
specific examples like say a long spell in prison). Something like
30-40% of people get hypnagogic myoclonus and that is
another (slightly differing) case.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
To: "uv" <uv.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Question for Bruno
>
> 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 Sat Nov 12 2005 - 08:59:44 PST