Re: Quantum Immortality and Information Flow

From: Russell Standish <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 08:56:25 +1100

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 04:22:58PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Now observation and knowledge are defined in the logics of
> self-reference, i.e. by transformation of G and G*, and so are each
> multiplied by two. Actually and amazingly for the knower (the first
> person) G and G* give the same logic, like if the first person
> conflates truth and provability. But for the notion of observation, G
> and G* give again different logics, so that the observer can
> distinguish communicable observations ("physical facts") and non
> communicable observations (sensations, I would argue).

Are you now saying that your operators

   Pp = Bp & -B-p

and

   Op = Bp & p & -B-p

correspond to "to observe" (Op being "to validly observe" I
suppose)?. Previously, you would say that Pp is "to bet on p", and Op
"to correctly bet on p", which never really made sense to me. What's
the French word you would use for this - I may know it, or perhaps I
can figure the relevant English term from a dictionary.

Cheers

-- 
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	       0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052         	         R.Standish.domain.name.hidden             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Sat Nov 19 2005 - 17:22:58 PST