[time 20] Re: [time 18] Reformulating Weyl's Unified Field Theory

Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Mon, 15 Mar 1999 22:09:57 -0500

Dear Robert,

ca314159 wrote:
> Dear Stephen,
> Stephen P. King wrote:
> > Weyl's ideas seem to get into how LSs "appear" to each other, or more
> > directly, how the dynamics of LSs, considered from the "external"
> > perspective, behaive. I believe that the experimental evidence for this
> > is in the Hubble red shift data (COBE, etc.). Robert and I last night
> > discussed how LSs act as adaptive antennas internally and like broadband
> > transmiters externally. What we see in Weyl's gauge variability is that
> > there is a dependence on the "history" or chronological ordering of a LS
> > with respect to what aspects of other LSs it can observe. We are also
> > thinking of LSs as adaptive filters, or Wegner's MIM's.
> > It is easy to see the connectionof gravity with consciousness when we
> > think in these terms.
> I know very little about Weyl other than he's a clear thinker.
> If I had time, I would read more of his work.
> I'm still not even sure what LSs are exactly.
> I mentioned the broadband antennas because of your comment on
> the red shift being a property of finiteness reminded me of
> the truncation of "infinite" antennas and the resulting effects.
> But I don't see what that has to do with LSs. Maybe you can
> explain some more what you are thinking here.

        I think that the way LSs can only represent internally a finite amount
of information, since it is composed of a finite number of "quantum
mechanical particles," yet is "exposed" to a potentially infinite amount
of information (the states of all other LS), defined by all of the other
LSs in the Universe, demonstrates this "truncation" effect. I have just
finished reading a paper by David Deutsch and Michael Lockwood, Sci. Am.
March 1994, "The Quantum Physics of Time Travel" that may illustrate an
analogous situation arising in the Everett-Dewitt Multiple universe
Interpretation. They calls it "asymmetric separation." The "autonomy
principle" looks suspiciously like the independence axioms of Local
Systems theory! I would even dare to say that Deutsch's multiple
universes are LSs! He just is missing the key axioms!
        I'll try to write something up about this later. Suffice it to say, I
think that we may need to upgrade the base space of LS theory from a
Riemannian manifold to something along the lines of Wheeler's
"Superspace," where every point is a Riemannian manifold, each
representing a differently configured set of coupled LSs (in a bound
state?). This would allow us to examine the topological and algebraic
properties of LS interactions...
> The point about adaptive filtering vs. spatial filtering is
> something Hitoshi might comment on. An "adaptive" optical filter
> might be one like Ealing's non-spatial holographic filter (these are
> a relatively recent development) that act on phases (momentum space ?)
> rather than an optical spatial filter which is also used holography,
> in which the beam is diffacted and the "noise" trimmed off by a template.
> Adaptive filters are temporal while spatial filters are in the
> spatial or equivalently the frequency domain. I still don't see
> what LSs are or where they fit in here or anywhere, I've only
> noted their properties from your discussions with Hitoshi.
> They seem analogous to wavelets in some way and to Saussure's
> "signs" in terms of their arbitrariness (non-deteminateness)
> and that these seem to be imbedded in a shaped space.
> Are local systems a kind of orthogonal basis ? How do they differ
> then with other bases ?
        An LS defines constructively/adaptively, not a priori (!), a local
basis within itself that minimizes its "surface" while maximizing its
"volume" like a bubble blown by the wind... We might be correct in
thinking of LSs as adaptive filters, IIRs, or better yet, as interactive
agents, as Peter defines them. The key feature that we much remember is
that separate from interactions that select "finite bucket-wise" their
finite properties, they are finite subsets of the Universe. It, in
itself, is Everything simultaneously...
> --
> http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/

Onward to the Unknown,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:29:45 JST