Stephen P. King (email@example.com)
Fri, 12 Mar 1999 11:35:40 -0500
In my not so humble opinition :) you have stumbled upon the key ideas
involved in my thinking of how local systems interact!!!!!
Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> Maybe what I am up against is exactly what you mentioned. I.e., the
> social problems in scientists world. Stephen promoted me to open a
> mailing list, which might open the next stage of our communication.
> I as well as you appreciate Stephen for his optimism and/or
> determination. Mailing list is just one method of communications. We
> three would make communications with others via usual e-mails and
> any other media. I for the time being am waiting the number of
> subscribers to the list increases. Just now there are only four
> members in the list: you, Stephen, Chris Hillman, and I. Chris
> seemed to have sent a post to the list to Stephen and Stephen
> forwarded it to the list, so I took a liberty to add Chris to the
> list with explaining Chris the situation.
HERE IT IS:
> Probably the politics in physics should be removed. Or at least they
> should have a common language to be able to communicate each other,
> as you write. This is, however, the most difficult problem as human
> beings have been struggling since their birth (as some say, this
> might be given by "God" to human. Maybe we would try to become
> another god if we could ever overcome the language difficulty).
a rough, very rough, sketch:
What is politics, in the most generic sense? It is the basis of the
vector space (?) within which individual observers (as LSs) model the
information content of other LSs that they can communicate with. (There
is some boundary function/mapping involved here that involves a mutual
entropy of the LSs...)
What is a "common launguage?" It is a system of encoding and decoding
data such that participants of the language system can agree on their
relative locations and environmental features.
What is a "God?" It is a "glocal" metric/basis/gauge group defined by
something like the greatest fixed points over the LSs that are
communicating. See P. Wegner's papers on Interactional machines.
I apologize for the hastiness of this post. It is probably "not even
wrong," but I have to go to work and must write down my thought before
they dissapear. :)
> For your convenience, I add a new information file of the list at
> the end of this mail.
> Hoping human beings could be better.
> Best wishes,
> PS Did recent posts to the list arrive at you? The former posts can
> be gotten by sending command
> get time time.9903
> in the content of a mail with any subject to firstname.lastname@example.org,
> as explained in the information file below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ca314159 <email@example.com>
> To: Hitoshi Kitada <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: Stephen P. King <email@example.com>
> Date: Friday, March 12, 1999 10:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Local Systems
> >Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> >> Dear Robert,
> >> Thanks for your confirmation of the minimality of my assumptions.
> >> a framework as large, the theory may be a sufficient and
> >> one. But physicists do not seem to be content with such a theory.
> >> Maybe they want to find anything new that has not been realized
> >> any new phenomena, any new control on nature, etc.
> > There seems to be too much politics in physics. But also there
> > seems to be a more religious struggle between physicists to have
> > their differing world-views confirmed. People like to pretend
> > physics is objective but there is so much subjectivity in it,
> > at the very limits of physics were only words and concepts are
> > This is why I am not so much studying physics as I was before
> > why I am studying linguistics and philosophy now. It may seem to
> > and Stephen that I've gone somewhat crazed, but I am seeing
> > that seem valid and suggest that the limits of any field cannot
> > explored without exploring what defines the limits.
> > You seem to have a rational approach which is to define a common
> > denominator and allow for specific instances to be derived from
> > common denominator as necessary. This is not too unlike object
> > oriented programming. It is an elegant idea.
> > What problems are you up against at this point ?
> >> BTW, would you participate in the new time list? Stephen posted
> >> message that was sent to you just a few minutes ago.
> >> because I did not tell him the address of the time list it was
> >> resent to him with many error warnings. The address for
> >> is
> >> firstname.lastname@example.org
> > I hope I remembered how to do this. I sent a subscribe message to
> > server.
> >> but the address of time list to which the messages should be
> >> is
> >> email@example.com
> >> I look forward to your subscription.
> > Thanks, I'll listen in, and try to understand.
Thank you so much for your work! :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:29:44 JST