On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/25/2014 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/23/2014 4:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Not "my" consciousness, no. I'm just suggesting that CTM
ultimately relies on some transcendent notion of perspective
itself. IOW, the sensible world is conceived as the resultant of
the inter-subjective agreement of its possible observers, each of
which discovers itself to be centred in some perspective.
Is the sensible world of *possible* observers supposed to include
the whole world. I'm always suspicious of the word "possible".
Does it refer to chance, i.e. many events were possible, I might
have had coffee instead of tea this morning, but only a few are
actual? Does it refer to anything not prohibited by (our best
theory of) physics: It's possible a meteorite might strike my
house? Or is it anything not entailing a contradiction: X and not
X?
Possible in the large sense, is the diamond of the modal logic.
But <> is just a symbol that we use with certain rules of
inference. To be applied it requires some interpretation.
That's the point.
Mathematical semantics provides then the math for describing a lot of
them, including sound and complete in their characterization of some
modal theory.
There are as many notions of possibility than there are modal
logics, and there are many.
I appreciate that you put in your enumeration the "possible" in the
sense of the "consistent" (not entailing A & ~A, or not entailing f).
David used "possible observers" as part of a definition. I don't
know what it would mean for an observer to not entail f. So I think
he had some other meaning (nomological) in mind. But in that case
his definition is somewhat circular.
I will interview correct rational machine, and I will say that a
machine believes A is she asserts A.
To say that they do not assert f means that they are consistent.
Bruno
Brent
That one, consistency, can be defined in arithmetic for all
arithmetically correct machine(~beweisbar('~(0=0)')), and it
happens also that such a definition entails different logics for
the "philosophical" or "physical" variant of it, and this choose
the different modal logics from machines self-references.
Bruno
PS my p-time seems to be delayed, I am still in the 23 february,
gosh!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
