[time 204] Re: [time 203] Observation

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 00:36:48 +0900

Dear Stephen,

On technical points...

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com>
To: <time@kitada.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 1999 11:23 PM
Subject: [time 203] Observation

> Dear Hitoshi,
> I have been reading the conversation with Ben with earnest. I am still
> wondering if the difficulty of
> the background radiation would be resolved by looking at the statistical
> aspects of LS interactions, not as an abstraction, but as how individual
> LSs observe other LS while ranging over the set Q. There is still the
> possibility of using Weyl's ideas here. My concern lies in how we
> resolve the "Obler's paradox" within Local System
> [time 202]
> [HK]
> >"You might be right as concerns the background radiation. And my theory could
> >explain it because the theory admits to see the universe as rather a
> >one with some value q=q1 belonging to Q (but not completely classical). The
> >problem here is why one adopts that value q1 (or decomposition of the
> >universe) when one observes the universe by their astronomical apparatus. Or
> >might be rephrased: why do physicists take the same value q1 when they
> >and argue the universe? There is no inevitability for them to take that value
> >q1: When you see the universe as a mind, you take the value q={ U }, where U
> >the universe system (with, maybe, some abuse of the terminology "q"), while
> >you argue Big Bang, you take the value q1. The same person can take two
> >different values of q, q={ U } and q=q1, when arguing the same universe. This
> >indicates that the problem of the observation of the universe should be
> >formulated as follows:
> >
> >What does the universe looks, at the observer, when he takes a particular
value of
> >q in his consideration of the universe?
> > To put it in another way,
> >
> >What one finds in the universe depends on the way he decomposes the universe.
> Are these decompositions unique?

Not unique.

E.g., consider a set L={1,2,3}. (In the case of the universe, L may be an
infinite set. At this point, to use the notion "cluster decomposition" b
concerning the universe may be an abuse at least at the present stage of the
theory. This point might be related with Obler's paradox as I mention below.)

Then the set Q is

Q={ {{1},{2},{3}},
       {{1},{2,3}}, {{1,2},{3}}, {{1,3},{2}},
       {{1,2,3}} },

consisting of 5 elements. b varies over those elements.

b={{1},{2},{3}} is the I-It case (completely classical). The observer sees each
particle as behaving classically.

q={{1,2,3}} is the I-Thou case. The observer sees L as a QM system consisting
of the particles 1,2,3 with some Hamiltonian like

H = -\Delta_{123}/2 + \sum V_{ij}(x_{ij})

with x_{ij} denoting the relative position between the particles i and j.

Other cases like q = {{1,2},{3}} are partially classical as well as QM case. In
this case, the particles 1 and 2 inside a cluster {1,2} behave as QM particles
with respect to the Hamiltonian of the subsystem consisting of the two particles
1 and 2:

H_{12}= - \Delta_{12}/2 + V_{12}(x_{12}),

while the particle 3 behaves like a classical particle that interacts
classically with the center of mass (CM) of the subsystem {1,2} consisting of 1
and 2. The Hamiltonian which might explain this QM-Classical system is given by
formula (QMG) on page 21 of time_IV.ps, which, however, is a quite rough

On Obler's paradox and Big Bang, my rude idea might be that humans and their
apparatuses cannot see the universe U in completely QM way (i.e. b={ U }),
probably because the universe consists of an infinite number of particles. If
so, they have to see the universe in classical way to some high extent always,
then what they see should look like what we observe, i.e. the observation by
humans and their apparatuses tells us the universe is expanding and thus Obler's
paradox is not observed, even if the total universe might be stationary.
Assumption behind this is that as the number of particles of a system L becomes
larger, it would be more and more difficult to see L as a QM one, by some
reasons related with recognition (or computation in your context).

Best wishes,

> Onward to the Unknown,
> Stephen

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