Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber201.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 29th 2022
    • (edited Dec 29th 2022)


    Aristotle’s actuality and potentiality

    Late Ivan Supek (Croatian theoretical physicist, writer and a bit of philosopher and political activist), who was a student of Heisenberg, often emphasized that because of this aspect of Aristotle’s picture of the world, Aristotle’s point of view would better suit quantum world than Platon’s which is otherwise more dominant in traditional scientific Weltanschauung. I listened to one lecture of him as a student dedicated to this topic, at a Croatian Academy of Sciences workshop related to Ruđer Bošković (whose theory of forces influenced Bohr according to Bohr himself).

    • CommentRowNumber202.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 29th 2022

    If there is any reference, I’d be interested in having a look.

    • CommentRowNumber203.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 29th 2022
    • (edited Dec 29th 2022)

    He definitely wrote something about that idea but I believe in Croatian only. Maybe with some effort some summary can be found in English somewhere.

    • CommentRowNumber204.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2023

    With the expected arrival of directed HoTT next week, what can we say of how the analogue of our possible worlds story should go?

    So we have in the ordinary case the adjoint triple generating the necessity and possibility (co)monads:

    ( WW * W):H /W w:WW * w:WH. (\exists_W \dashv W^\ast \dashv \forall_W) \;\colon\; \mathbf{H}_{/W} \stackrel{\stackrel{\forall_{w \colon W}}{\longrightarrow}}{\stackrel{\stackrel{W^\ast}{\longleftarrow}}{\underset{\exists_{w\colon W}}{\longrightarrow}}} \mathbf{H} \,.

    Presumably in the directed case we have similar maps between a slice of some (,2)(\infty, 2)-topos and itself.

    Let’s keep things simple. So a classic example of the undirected case sees a set of worlds, WW, and then WW-dependent propositions. We also might consider WW-dependent sets and look at sections or the total space.

    In the directed case, we might take WW to be a poset of worlds. A WW-dependent proposition is presumably an upper set. Then adjoints to base change, W *W^{\ast}, are the limit and colimit over WW, I take it. And we might consider presheaves of (,1)(\infty, 1)-categories over WW.

    This set-up then generates 2-(co)monads which resemble necessity and possibility, and so on right up to dependence on an (,1)(\infty, 1)-category or a morphism between two such. I take it there wouldn’t be anything new here, but considering things modally might be interesting.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)