[time 205] Re: [time 203] Observation

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 01:01:34 +0900

Dear Stephen,

Another possibility of avoiding Obler's paradox is to assume the universe
consists of a finite number of particles. I think we should retain this
possibility, seeing the present stage of the theory.


----- 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?
> Onward to the Unknown,
> Stephen

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