# [time 317] Re: [time 285] Re: [time 279] Re: [time 278] Re: [time 276] [Fwd: Fisher information]

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

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

Best wishes,
Hitoshi

----- Original Message -----
To: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.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>
> 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!
>
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
> >
> > >
> > > Dear Friends,
> > >
> > > Is there anyone who has Frieden's book?
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Hitoshi
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.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
> >
>
>

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