**Stephen P. King** (*stephenk1@home.com*)

*Sat, 17 Apr 1999 09:55:02 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 239] Re: [time 232] Re: [time 229] Direction of time or Free will"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 237] Re: [time 232] Re: [time 229] Direction of time or Free will"

Dear Hitoshi,

I forgot something. The following should read in my last post to you:

I am reading Brown & Harre's "Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field

Theory", it is very interesting. I see Cau's discussion of Gauge

theory... very helpful, but that strange notion I have of gauge

covariance is still there: "[Weyl's theory implies] ... spectral lines

with definite frequencies do not exist" This cries

out to me! What does "definite" mean? Is this not a term with meaning

that is implicit only in finite observation and meaningless when related

to the Totality? Is it that easy to forget that the "in-itselfness" of

any aspect of U, be it any LS or U itself, is always unknowable, for it

is everything simultaneously. Why is there such a need for the thought

what one person observes to be imposed on *all possible* observers? Are

we not "alone" in our minds, and thus our particular observations need

not be identical to all other's? Is it not sufficient that a small

finite subset of the totality be capable of being communicated about in

order to construct a translational bridge connecting one observer's

precepts and those of another?

I have this beautiful picture of spheres within spheres, each finite on

the outside and infinite on the inside; but I am afraid that I am a poet

trying to talk mathematics to physicists. If you only understood the

concept of "bisimulation". Please, Hitoshi, I beg you, read Peter's

paper http://www.cs.brown.edu/~pw/papers/math1.ps. Think of how an LS is

a computational system or an agent. An LS is a "black box" to any other

LS! How do they model each other's internal behavior?

"Bisimulation"!!!!! The act of communicating is the indefinite

connection; it is *not* a priori!

The key idea is how an LS "approximates" certainty, this is an

interactive computation! Remember your mention of how numbers are

constructed from 'nothingness' [time 231]? What is important is the

boundary separating one aspect from the other, the Cut. I am asking for

attention to *how it is that completion is reached*; how do we

"complete" the "natural numbers, we assume 0 (zero) is defined as an

empty set, and define 1 as {0}, 2 as {0,1}, 3 as {0,1,2}, ...," to get

the Reals? Let us think of Cantor's diagonalization (which ironically is

also Goedel's tool!) as the method of completing -think "computing!"-

them. I see that this completion is an aspect of Time! "Everything can

not happen simultaneously" This is obvious!

I understand that I am making noise from the point of view of an

observer that only can only see crisply defined symbol structures! :(

But the symbols are post hoc (after the fact) to the idea!

One final poetic question: Can we think of a "boundary" as an

equivalence class of mappings?

I have to go to work now. :(

Onward!

Stephen

**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 239] Re: [time 232] Re: [time 229] Direction of time or Free will"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 237] Re: [time 232] Re: [time 229] Direction of time or Free will"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:52 JST
*