[time 6] Re: [time 5] [Fwd: money and time; time and money]

Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Fri, 12 Mar 1999 21:05:00 -0500

Hi Robert,

        I'm about to watch PI! :) I'll let you know what I think later...

ca314159 wrote:
> Time List,
> If my understanding of lists is correct, this should reach
> all of you. Majordomo sent me a confirmation that I was subscribed
> to the time list.
> Right now I'm curious about fermions because most of the ideas
> I've been toying with seem applicable only to bosons or the simplest
> case of waves and particles. Particles with charge, mass, inertia
> create another layer of complexity.

        I think that we will be able to model fermions when we start working
with Complex numbers instead of just Reals to represent/model the
progression of time by an LS. This is a pure uneducated guess.. :)

> What follows is just a playful survey of ideas I wrote up for
> someone at work who was into Nietzsche's ideas on the determination
> of truth. Philosophers, linguists and physicists alike, trouble
> with the nature of classifications of events in time as well as
> the associations of "events" in space.
> --
> http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: money and time; time and money
> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 10:09:58 -0500
> From: Robert Fung <Robert.Fung@citicorp.com>
> Organization: Applied Technology
> To: ca314159 <ca314159@bestweb.net>
> Money compresses Time. The pauper becomes the prince given
> enough time, either by pure chance or by diligent management
> of his meager income. Money allows us to do many things in
> a short amount of time (our life spans) that would otherwise
> require immortality to achieve. The millionaire squeezes as
> much out of his alloted time on earth by accumulating money.
> Money is a liquid as is Time; they cannot have "value" without
> "measurement" which is the exchange of money for the information
> of its value. Similarly, time has no "value" unless it is measured
> by a clock and otherwise flows like a liquid, uninterrupted and
> unmeasured.

        Please reread Bart Kosko's chapter on mutual fuzzy entropy in Fuzzy
Engineering! Remember the words: "information fluid wave equations"... !
:) !
        I am becoming convinced that mutual entropy (e.g. mutual fuzzy
subsethood) is the best way to model the basic building blocks of
interactions among LSs.
> The "value" of "truth" is determined by the measurement of
> truth.
> If something is true, then it is also not "not true".
> Can something be a member of the set "true" and also
> a member of the set "not true" ?

        There is also the "frontier" separating True from ~True (false) which
is neither! This is a referent to my idea that "the boundary of a
boundary is not always zero"... This is a key aspect of GR!
> Can we say that Schrodinger's Cat is both dead and alive ?
> "Statistically", orthogonality is handled by the concept of
> discrete and independent measurements with an orthonormal
> basis. We say the cat will be measure sometimes in the
> alive state and sometimes in the dead state for ensembles
> of measurements. From a view over Time, the abstract
> notion of a Cat appears to be classifable as both dead AND alive
> while specific cats are measured as either dead XOR alive.

        Outside of the LS perspective, e.g. from the "god" point of view every
LS is simultaneously in every state. The xor operation is what a finite
LS does to observe another. I still think that Wheeler's Surprise 20
Questions game best models how a sequence of xor defines a chronological
ordering and thus a Minkowski light-cone structure. Interaction between
LSs defines a common spacetime for LSs that have a non-zero mutual fuzzy

> This gives us the illusion of the abstract cat being
> simultaneously dead AND alive related to the concepts of
> distinguishable Boolean measureables. This is the Bohr-Heisenberg
> approach to quantum physics and by mapping "truth" and "falsity"
> for "dead" and "alive" one relates this problem to the
> that of getting non-orthogonal results from a Boolean bivalent logic.

        This last statement is also a point that Kosko's information wave
mechanics applies to! Remember that Boolean certainty implies an
infinite signal propagation, and such makes any finite sized minkowski
manifold instantly collapse to an infinitesinal point! The degeneracy of
spacetime manifolds when we introduce Heisenberg's uncertanty on it is
an example of this property. This is another manifestation of the
strange and weird reality of QM.
> A "non-Statistical" approach, is that of Schrodinger. Instead
> of having distinguishable measurements over time, he uses
> the ability of waves to superpose states like "dead" and "alive"
> so that they can be both valid states at the same time.
> Something can therefore be true and false at the same time.
> But in Schrodinger's approach, this wave is abstract. Upon
> measurement it must collapse into one of the two states
> "dead" xor "alive". In this case we do not need the notion
> of an abstract cat to represent non-orthogonality of states
> as we did in the statistcal approach, but we do need the
> notion of an abstract "wavefunction" which holds the superposition
> of orthogonal states. The superposition of orthogonal states
> is how wave theory represents bivalent Boolean logic in terms
> of state-less waves.

        Many have thought that this statistical feature is due to "ignorance"
on the part of the observer and that it is subjective. Well, they are
correct, but in a way that they do not like at all! There is no escaping
the subject - object dichotomy! A LS can never completely internally
model all possible states of interaction that it can have with all other
LSs. This is proven by Svozil generalization of Goedel's Incompleteness
theorem.... A completely objective perspective could not be
distinguished from a completely subjective one! I think they would both
give a physics that is inertia and motion free!

> The cat, can be thought of as a particle. It can be measured in
> specific complementary states (dead xor alive) only within the
> notions of Time and Causality.

        Yes! And such are always finite and thus "incomplete!"
> A "determination of Truth" can be thought of as a particle.
> It can be measured in specific complementary states
> (true xor false) within the notions of Time and Causality.
> Without "Time", there is no closure on a Truth, its value
> like the value of money is only determined upon the closure
> of measurement or sale. Its expected value is a matter of
> speculation which is an attempt to evaluate or predict its
> future value. The expectations of values are not closures
> just as Schrodinger's wavefunction is "abstract" and only
> becomes "real" when a measurement (closure) takes place.
> The sequences of closures form the basis of the meaurement
> of Time since the causual relations between the closures
> are viewable as a "time-series" of events.

        Absolutely! Well said! :)
> Expectations are made "through" time. We only have to
> "predict" things if we cannot stand outside of Time
> and see the causual chain as a continuous uninterrupted
> chain or wave from past to future.

        The ideas relating DSP commpression to FTL communications involve this!
Danger! Search: Philip Taylor Kramer!
> Living inside of Time requires us to predict things (events)
> and these are particulate events to which we ascribe states
> or values. Living outside of Time, we view only space and
> events become merely a spatial collection of states.

        The ability to predict and recall patterns *are* the evolutionary
pressures on the brain/mind!
> The former is time-like while the later is space-like.
> It is time-like to look at a painting, molecule by molecule
> in ordered sequence and not in general being able to predict
> what the color of the next molecule will be. This is a dynamic
> process of observation.

        Well put! :)
> It is space-like to view the painting static whole where there
> is no time and we do not resolve particulate molecules. We only
> see the superpositions of colors and never make any measurements
> upon the colors of specific molecules.
> The problem with continuity is that almost everyone demands
> closure.

        Everybody wants their metric scale to be *the* metric scale! Everybody
wants be be GOD!

> see Discourse and Debate:
> http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/

Excellent paper!



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:29:44 JST