**Hitoshi Kitada** (*hitoshi@kitada.com*)

*Sun, 16 May 1999 20:24:50 +0900*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 318] correction to [time 317]"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 316] Re: Other Minds"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 318] correction to [time 317]"

Dear Stephen,

I got the book of Frieden. It is interesting. I now begin changing my

reservation I wrote in the following quotation.

He discusses the error which necessarily arises in the closed

observations (errors are associated with any closed observation: if the

observation can be considered open as in Peter's paper, the error does

not exist), and as a minimizing solution of the error, he derives

physics laws in the form of Lagrangians for each specific physical

observation. Thus errors are the cause of physics in his context.

In the context of Local Systems theory, this each Lagrangian seems to

correspond to a factor in the factorization of the universe, e.g. in the

factorization X x R^6, the first factor corresponds to GR and the second

to QM. Maybe my method would give a unification of all kinds of

observation. Here I mean by observation, GR, QM, Electromagnetism, QED,

... So the universe is a tensor product of infinite number of factors,

each factor of which corresponds to each theory. The unification would

be given as a reconciliation by means of some translation among theories

that makes them commensurable with each other (as the relativistic

"correction" of QM values gives the relativistic QM results).

The book seems well written, although I am still at the second chapter.

Hillman's critiques you posted in [time 314] might apply to the

differential geometry part (I do not reach that part). But the

philosophy of the book is clear. The ambiguity which I felt when reading

the advertisement is not in the book.

Best wishes,

Hitoshi

----- Original Message -----

From: Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@kitada.com>

To: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com>

Cc: <time@kitada.com>

Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 10:46 PM

Subject: [time 285] Re: [time 279] Re: [time 278] Re: [time 276] [Fwd:

Fisher information]

*> Dear Stephen,
*

*>
*

*> ----- Original Message -----
*

*> From: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com>
*

*> To: Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@kitada.com>
*

*> Cc: <time@kitada.com>
*

*> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 11:13 AM
*

*> Subject: [time 279] Re: [time 278] Re: [time 276] [Fwd: Fisher
*

information]

*>
*

*>
*

*> > Dear Hitoshi,
*

*> >
*

*> > I have the book on order...
*

*> >
*

*> > Here is a critique by Chris Hillman et al:
*

*> >
*

*> > http://members.home.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Frieden.txt
*

*> >
*

*> > I got:
*

*> >
*

*> > Fisher's arrow of time in quantum cosmology (1998)
*

*> > by Frieden, B. Roy & Rosu, H. C.
*

*> > Journal Title: Modern Physics Letters A
*

*> > Volume Number: 13
*

*> > Page Number: 39
*

*> >
*

*> > I is awesome! I am putting a summary together. Perhaps I'll finish
*

*> > tomorrow. I am convinced that his work dovetails into ours!
*

*>
*

*> I am not sure what the advertisement "Do Questions Asked Define The
*

Laws Of

*> Physics?" in [time 280] says tells the truth about the work of
*

Frieden. I

*> suspect that his work is just a paraphrasing of physics, not a new
*

discovery

*> of any fundamental aspects of our recognition. If it would have
*

meaning, it

*> would be only when a new interpretation of our recognition is brought
*

into our

*> sight. I would reserve my opinion till then.
*

*>
*

*> Best wishes,
*

*> Hitoshi
*

*>
*

*> We need to
*

*> > seriously think about the information theoretical aspects of LS
*

theory!

*> > I have some interesting ideas but not words. :( I think in
*

pictures ->

*> > dyslexia! I hate it, I like a person struck deaf when trying to say
*

*> > Eureka! :( But I shall try:
*

*> > The fundamental assumptions, such as Noeter's theorems need to be
*

*> > looked at very carefully within the LS theory! No connections
*

between

*> > LSs -> no Universal Absolute Unique space-time with a priori
*

*> > Langrangians -> Conservation Laws are <<glocal>>? since they only
*

apply

*> > to finite clusters of interacting LSs...
*

*> > I have said before that there is no unique manifold X (Riemannian or
*

*> > other wise) for all LSs to be fibered into; I think that this
*

relates to

*> > the "operator ordering problem for coherent states". This also plays
*

*> > into our thinking about histories (sum over histories, etc.!) as an
*

*> > aspect of time.
*

*> > Clocks merely gauge the "flow" of the LS scattering propagation,
*

they

*> > do not define a unique ordering in themselves unless we could show
*

that

*> > the ordering of the configurations of the quantum mechanical
*

particles!

*> > This is like how the numbers on the face of an analogue clock are
*

*> > ordered mod 12: ..., 1, 2, ..., 11, 12, 1, 2, ... . We could also
*

think

*> > of a of a non-cyclic model of clock that uses an endless paper tape
*

with

*> > numbers: ..., n-1, n, n+1, ...
*

*> > I see these as an example of the "streams" in Peter's work! I think
*

*> > there are a minimum of three components to a clock: Two disjoint
*

sets of

*> > streams and a mapping between the two. The configurations of
*

positions

*> > and velocities are streams and the mapping -the quotient operation-,
*

is

*> > maybe, their mutual entropy (how much of the whole of one is a
*

subset of

*> > the other's powerset) - (there is something missing in this line of
*

*> > thought!) I think that the infomorphism maps LS clocks into (up to
*

onto

*> > at the limit m -> +/- \infinity) each other.
*

*> > How this works into Frieden's thinking I am working on... ;) It does
*

*> > begin to answer Lance's challenge to me. :)
*

*> >
*

*> > Onward,
*

*> >
*

*> > Stephen
*

*> >
*

*> > Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
*

*> > >
*

*> > > Dear Friends,
*

*> > >
*

*> > > Is there anyone who has Frieden's book?
*

*> > >
*

*> > > Best wishes,
*

*> > > Hitoshi
*

*> > >
*

*> > > ----- Original Message -----
*

*> > > From: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com>
*

*> > > To: <time@kitada.com>
*

*> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 11:12 PM
*

*> > > Subject: [time 276] [Fwd: Fisher information]
*

*> > >
*

*> > > ----- Original Message -----
*

*> > > From: Christopher Brown <cbrown@chem1.chem.dal.ca>
*

*> > > To: <stephenk1@home.com>
*

*> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 11:53 PM
*

*> > > Subject: Re: Fisher information
*

*> > >
*

*> > > > > I have assembled a link page on Fisher information and have a
*

*> > > > >definition: "The Fisher Information about a parameter is
*

defined to

*> > > > >be \theta the expectation of the second derivative of the
*

*> > > > >loglikelihood."
*

*> > > > >http://members.home.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/fisherinfo.html
*

*> > > > > But I am still needing an intuitive grasp of that it means. :)
*

*> > > >
*

*> > > >
*

*> > > > In short, when you estimate a parameter, you estimate it's value
*

usually

*> by taking
*

*> > > > the estimate of the parameter to be the maximum likelihood
*

value. So we

*> get an
*

*> > > > estimated parameter value, and we know it's uncertain. Imagine
*

it as a

*> normal
*

*> > > > distribution, the center of which is our estimate, and the
*

variance of

*> which is the
*

*> > > > uncertainty we have in the location of our estimate. The
*

Fischer

*> Information
*

*> > > > essentially describes how sharp that normal distribution is
*

around our

*> estimate.
*

*> > > > More Fischer Information roughly implies a more informative
*

estimate

*> (i.e. tighter
*

*> > > > spread around the MLE).
*

*> > > >
*

*> > > > Hope it helps,
*

*> > > > CDB
*

*> >
*

*>
*

*>
*

**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 318] correction to [time 317]"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 316] Re: Other Minds"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 318] correction to [time 317]"

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