**Ben Goertzel** (*ben@goertzel.org*)

*Mon, 05 Apr 1999 12:35:39 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 179] Re: [time 175] Re: [time 173] Re: [time 167] Re: [time 164] Question"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 177] Re: [time 174] Prime numbers in pregeometry"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 180] Re: [time 178] Questions"

Hitoshi,

A couple questions on reading of "Theory of Local Times".

I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand...

The proof of Theorem 2 (p. 11) seems very much a "physicist's proof" and

the mathematician

in me is a little dubious

The assumption of independence seems to me to be pulled out of a hat.

Please explain

where it comes from. I see that it is true that ~generally~, different

parts of the universe are going

to be ~mostly~ independent. But this is different than being able to

rigorously make the assumption,

as an axiom for the derivation of a theorem, that the observing local

system and the observed

local system are DEFINITELY independent.

In fact, quantum nonlocality means that independence is even ~less~ easily

assumed than

one would believe in classical physics.

What am I missing?

In the comments following Theorem 2, you refer to the alternate formulation

of your

theory as a vector bundle theory, involving X x R^6

But, I don't see how this solves the problem. Each point x in X is a point

in GR space, a

macroscopic point, and the copy of R^6 corresponding to x is the local

space of which

x is the centre of mass. Still, this doesn't show that in the REAL

universe, the different

copies of R^6 are going to be independent of each other, even though their

centres of

mass may be interacting.

You say that the L^2 representations of the local spaces are independent --

you mean

by this standard "linear independence", I assume.

But I just don't get how the local spaces can be truly independent while

the centres of

mass interact??

ben

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 179] Re: [time 175] Re: [time 173] Re: [time 167] Re: [time 164] Question"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 177] Re: [time 174] Prime numbers in pregeometry"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 180] Re: [time 178] Questions"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:51 JST
*