[time 194] Re: [time 192] one more addition to Re: Prugovecki's time

Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Tue, 06 Apr 1999 15:22:47 -0400

Dear Hitoshi,

Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> > Do we say that there is a spacetime proper to *each* LS and,
> > symmetrically, an LS proper to each spacetime?
> There is no symmetry between LS and space-time at least in LS theory. LS
> theory assumes the existence of space-time for each LS. Probably, the problem
> you raise here is that we have a common space-time. My point in LS theory is
> that that is only an assumption that cannot be verified, and that it is a
> thing that we assume. This is the reason why I impose axioms 4 and 5. This
> assumption remedies people from their "common" universe being chaos. But note
> that, at the deepest level, there is no assurance that we can have a "common"
> universe.

        I, as you, do not assume a unique and absolute common universe can be
had for an arbitrary pair of LS's. This is, to me, one reason why I
think that the Big Bang hypothesis is seriously wrong. I call a common
universe a "cosmos". It is my conjecture that a cosmos is such that the
observers x and y of it agree within some error that it is the same for
all of them. I think that the error bound is proportional to distance
d(x,y) between observers and thus intimately related to the Hubble
expansion. There is more to this that I will deal with within the
context of Weyl's work..



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