Recent content by gentzen

I guess you are confusing David Wallace with Wojciech Żurek here.

Yes. Yes, good point: True is used with respect to a specific model. For statements concerning all models, a different terminology is used. When coming from the syntax side, one could just say provable. I don't remember the terminology when coming from the model/semantics side, but valid sounds...

Well, we still say that a proposition which is True everywhere is just True (or top ⊤), and a proposition which is True only on the empty set (or bottom ⊥/initial object) is False. You can say that the wff is valid, if you want, but you can also just say that it is True. Yes. No need to force...

Yes!

No, "semantics" just means "theory of meaning". Even so you could talk of "theories of meaning", there is no way to put "semantics" into plural form. In logic, one contrasts syntax and semantics. Well, take the real numbers ##\mathbb R## as your topological space, and ##P:=(-\infty,0)##. Then...

Independent of whether IPL is "supposed to model", it does model various specific "kind of world(s)". Or in other words, there are a variety of semantics for IPL: categorical semantics Kripke semantics open subsets semantics (aka topological semantics) Your formulation "kind of world" sounds...

How about Cournot’s principle? See here for some books, presentations, and articles where it is discussed:

A "good explanation" is what I mean by “mechanism”. Therefore, my question becomes whether the explanation from Mermin's chapter 9 is actually "good", especially whether it is better than Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). My guess is that the third frame (with its suitably chosen speed) is a good...

I "claimed" that the wave equation perspective is different from Lorentz Ether Theory (original post, before the edit). In the Lorentz Ether Theory, you accept that moving things "really get length contracted". That would be something mysterious to worry about. It is more his pedagogic attempt...

It was not ment as a complaint, and especially the lengthy parts were not part of that reference to moderation actions. My physics question (or physics topic) is the bold part below: (Quoted from RUTA's Insights article) Is there really nothing to be explained except for "relativity of...

The reference given in the original post (before the edit) was:

Here are more examples that I do believe that this analog contains an important grain of truth: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/evolution-of-the-renner-et-al-wigner-like-paradox.1004063/post-6503102...

In most textbooks on special relativity or electrodynamics, it is mentioned sooner or later that the Lorentz transformations are symmetries of the wave equation (and of the vacuum Maxwell equations). I no longer remember whether I ever worried about interpretation of special relativity. But this...

Yes, this is the meaning of that product symbol with two subscripts.

Let me verify: I have to admit that the bold parts (bold by me) suggest that Barandes distinguishes between the t' at which the subsystem is divisible and those which are a conditioning time. This is new in v3, compared to v2 which I once read: However, even the new passage suggests that...