Hitoshi Kitada (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sun, 16 May 1999 22:16:25 +0900
I mixed things:
----- Original Message -----
From: Hitoshi Kitada <email@example.com>
To: Stephen P. King <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 1999 8:24 PM
Subject: [time 317] Re: [time 285] Re: [time 279] Re: [time 278] Re: [time
276] [Fwd: Fisher information]
> 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,
This is my misunderstanding: Frieden obtains Lagrangian by minmizing the
Fisher information I, which decreases, as time goes to infinity, to a
minimum that is an equivalent of an equilibrium. This, by Cramer-Rao
e^2 I >= 1,
means that the minimum of the error e becomes the largest. His equilibrium
corresponds to the state with maximum entropy.
> 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,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:10:31 JST