[time 206] Re: [time 205] Re: [time 203] Observation

Ben Goertzel (ben@goertzel.org)
Sat, 10 Apr 1999 14:13:38 -0400

At 01:01 AM 4/11/99 +0900, Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
>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.

Personally, I think that the universe should be assumed finite. As an atheist,
I don't believe in infinity ;)

>----- 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
>> >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
>> >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.
>> >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
>> 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