On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 04:48:22PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Excellent post Johnatan.
>
> Of course those who know a bit of AUDA (which I have already explained
> on the list) know that from the third person self-reference views we
> have cul-de-sac everywhere ("we die all the times", cf the
> "Papaioannou multiverses"), and this is what forces us, when we want a
> theory of observation (which by UDA is a probability or credibilty
> calculus) to define the probabilities by imposing the absence of cul-
> de-sac. This is *the* motivation for the new box Bp & Dt. Dt, by
> Kripke semantics, is equivalent to imposing the absence of cul-de-sac.
> Yet, by incompleteness Dt is not provable by the machine, and after we
> make the addition of the "non-cul-de-sac" principle (Dt), we loose the
> Kripke semantics. But this is a good news, given that we will have to
> manage (plausibly) continua of "next observer momen or historiest".
I'm a little confused. Did you mean Dp here? Dp = -B-p
>
> Apology for those who have not follow the (many) old modal posts, but
> we will soon or later come back to this. Read Boolos book (and
> mathematical logic books).
>
> Bruno
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052
hpcoder@...
Australia
http://www.hpcoders.com.au----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
