Discussion of the MUH
I'm trying to strike up a discussion of the MUH but my discussion started at sci.logic and apparently, not many logicians are interested in Physics, or something... :P Here is a link (two, actually) to the discussion. I don't know how to proceed, to discuss here or there. It does not matter to me. http://groups.google.sh/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/b0ed9baa707749ad/ef7752e4bcfc2631#ef7752e4bcfc2631 http://groups.google.sh/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/ b0ed9baa707749ad/ef7752e4bcfc2631#ef7752e4bcfc2631>MUH Discussion at Google Groups --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: UDA paper
Bruno Marchal skrev: > Hi Torgny, > > Le 29-févr.-08, à 15:25, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : > > >> >> I have just tested to upload a file to the group (PofSTorgny1.doc). >> You >> can try to see if you can see that file. (You have to log in to Google >> groups first.) >> > > I see (and did print) your file. I have put the movie there, in two > version but I cannot retrieve it. With the first I get the code, and > with the other (the one with ".mpeg") I get the QuickTime logo with an > interrogation mark. If you or someone can see the movie from there, > just tell me. > > I have not succeeded to view your movie. I have downloaded your files to my computer. But it seems as if your files are corrupted in some way. I have tried three different movie players (Windows Media Player, RealPlayer, and QuickTime), but no one was able to recognize your files. -- Torgny --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: modal logic KTB (a.k.a. B)
Le 04-mars-08, à 13:20, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > >> The idea is to identify an accessible world with possible results of >> experiments. Symmetry then entails that if you do an experiment which >> gives some result, you can repeat the experience and get those results >> again. You can come back in the world you leave. It is an intuitive >> and >> informal idea which is discussed from time to time in the literature. > > I do not understand. What are the atomic propositions at each world? First order Sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (with intensional nuance driven by the modal logic itself determined by the type of points of view (1-person, 1-person plural, etc.). > Suppose the atomic propositions are what I currently know on a physical > system. This does not make sense. In the way I proceed I will use the arithmetically derived points of view logics (the arithmetical hypostases) to derive the logic of observability, knowability, sensitivity ... > Now suppose that I am in a world where I know (more or less) the > momentum of a particle. I then measure its position and thus move in > another world. It is now unlikely that the particle has the same > momentum > (due the the uncertainty principle). Again. Just remember that I am not supposing any physics at all, nor any "physical world". > Thus, if I measure again its > momentum, I might go back but I cannot be sure I will go back to the > same > previous world. It is true that I can measure again the position and > get > the same result, but it is because of reflexivity, not because of > symmetry. Why do you say this is entailed by symmetry? This might be > because you define the worlds of the frame in another way... Again, I work in the oether direction. I will try to explain you this with more details once I have more time. Note that, relatively to the UDA and its arithmetical version, you are quite above the current discussion. I think that if you grasp the UDA, you will better grasp the role of the (modal) quantum logic, and how to retrieve it from arithmetics and provability logic. Did you grasp the UDA's point? > >> I suggest you consult the Orthologic paper by Goldblatt 1974, if you > are >> interested. > > Unfortunately I have no access to this article. Can you advise me a > paper > available on internet where this idea is discussed? Unfortunately most papers bearing on this are "pre-internet". Try to google on Dalla Chiara, Goldblatt, Quantum Logic, Quantum modal logic, etc. In the worst case I can send to you a copy of some papers. The text by Maria Louisa Dalla Chiara on Quantum Logic in the handbook on philosophical logic is quite good. There exists also complementary works by Abramski. Some makes interesting relations between knot theory, Temperley Lieb Algebra, computation and combinators. In general Abramski and linear logicians (and others) despise quantum logic, but their reasons are not relevant in the context of deriving the comp-physics from comp by self-reference, as UDA shows (or is supposed to show) once we bet on the comp hypothesis. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: UDA paper
Hi Torgny, Le 29-févr.-08, à 15:25, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : > > Bruno Marchal skrev: >> Hi Wei, >> >> I have not succeeded to upload the movie, nor do I have seen files >> which I heard should have been already uploaded by people on the list. >> The system complains that I am not a member of the list. >> I will try again Monday, because it looks like the discussion are not >> currently available too, so the problem is perhaps with the >> Googlegroups. >> >> But if that works it is of course the good idea, thanks, >> >> > > I have just tested to upload a file to the group (PofSTorgny1.doc). > You > can try to see if you can see that file. (You have to log in to Google > groups first.) I see (and did print) your file. I have put the movie there, in two version but I cannot retrieve it. With the first I get the code, and with the other (the one with ".mpeg") I get the QuickTime logo with an interrogation mark. If you or someone can see the movie from there, just tell me. Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: modal logic KTB (a.k.a. B)
> The idea is to identify an accessible world with possible results of > experiments. Symmetry then entails that if you do an experiment which > gives some result, you can repeat the experience and get those results > again. You can come back in the world you leave. It is an intuitive and > informal idea which is discussed from time to time in the literature. I do not understand. What are the atomic propositions at each world? Suppose the atomic propositions are what I currently know on a physical system. Now suppose that I am in a world where I know (more or less) the momentum of a particle. I then measure its position and thus move in another world. It is now unlikely that the particle has the same momentum (due the the uncertainty principle). Thus, if I measure again its momentum, I might go back but I cannot be sure I will go back to the same previous world. It is true that I can measure again the position and get the same result, but it is because of reflexivity, not because of symmetry. Why do you say this is entailed by symmetry? This might be because you define the worlds of the frame in another way... > I suggest you consult the Orthologic paper by Goldblatt 1974, if you are > interested. Unfortunately I have no access to this article. Can you advise me a paper available on internet where this idea is discussed? _ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail http://mail.yahoo.fr --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
