[time 298] Re: [time 252] Re: [time 251] Peter Wegner's paper

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Mon, 10 May 1999 19:35:52 +0900

Dear Peter,

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Wegner <pw@cs.brown.edu>
To: <time@kitada.com>; <hitoshi@kitada.com>
Cc: <pw@cs.brown.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 1:23 AM
Subject: [time 252] Re: [time 251] Peter Wegner's paper


> For more details on the relation to interactive to
> physical models, you may wish to look at the paper
> "Towards Empirical Computer Science", available
> on my home page and to appear in the Monist
> special issue on the philosophy of computation.
> My analysis of the relation between multi-stream
> machines and the Einstein-Bohr controversy
> on the hidden variable model should be interesting to you.

Among the midst of Japanese academic year, I have been postponing the reading
of your paper "Towards Empirical Computer Science." I could find time today to
see some parts, especially I read Part II: Physics and Computation.

I understand the role of "secondary observer" in your context. In my terms it
is the same as the environment where an observed LS L is put. An observer O of
L cannot know the effects on L of other LS's, which are the cause of
nondeterministic QM behavior of L, although the process is deterministic for
God. This would remain a rough sketch since your point seems to be more in
"hidden-interface models" and the related topics.

I also understand why Stephen is interested in your thought in the context of
LS theory. I apologize for not being able to find time to see the paper

In my context, I restrict "observation" to the one which you call that of
closed systems. I know that the environment cannot be separated from the
observed. However, in physics, all observations are done with assuming (or
preparing) that the observed and observer are (approximately) isolated from
the environment. The explanation of observed results in my theory is just this
behavior of the closed system consisting of observed and observer systems.

I agree that there is a possibility that the nondeterministic behavior of the
observed system may be able to be explained by taking the unknown environment
into account, but I am not sure how or what kind of theory could be
constructed on this standpoint, and how you explain the actual physical values
of the observations. Namely I think we need some more specific description of
your thought so that it gives quantitative predictions about observations.

Nonetheless, I think your thought and reflection of the current understanding
of nature is important in the point that you put emphasis on the analysis of
the behavior of observers which are necessarily considered as subjective

Best wishes,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:10:31 JST