Matti Pitkanen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 20 May 1999 07:57:07 +0300 (EET DST)
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
> Dear Hitoshi,
> Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> > Dear Stephen,
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stephen P. King <email@example.com>
> > To: Hitoshi Kitada <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Cc: Time List <email@example.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 12:42 AM
> > Subject: [time 328] Re: [time 326] Re: Fisher information and relativity
> > Frieden thinks the observational aspect only. Thus space-time is given for
> > him. Maybe in this sense, my notion or defintion of time is not necessary
> > for his consideration. It is sufficient that some parameter corresponding to
> > time is given for him.
> But is not the main point of your LS theory? I understand that Frieden
> is assuming an a priori space-time to frame his thoughts. We must think
> of his notions as applying to the "mechanisms of observation" of LSs and
> as such should use a line of thought similar to your explanation of the
> Hubble expansion.
> Most people do not understand your theory! It is very hard to accept
> that their is no absolute clock (or unique space-time frame!) for all
> possible observers! People instinctively wish for an absolute ordering,
> duration and length measure to the world for that would allow them to
> affirm that their particular way of thinking is the only correct one and
> every one else is wrong. This violates the spirit of relativity. "Any
> observer perceives their own subuniverse to be Minkowskian in itself."
> (my notion)
> I say that Einstein did not go far enough, he should of banished the
> notion of a Unique space-time for all observers all together. We need to
> discuss this further! We need to rethink everything starting with the
> notion of causality!
I agree with the idea that there is no unique spacetime but quantum
superposition of spacetimes. But I think that also the hypothesis
about observer is too strong and leads to philosophical problems.
Just conscious observations are needed, I think.
Various observations given very limited information about
reality which itself changes in every moment of consciousness. Could
this be sufficiently general to be free of internal contradictions?
> > > I believe that Frieden's work is but another piece of the puzzle of
> > > Quantum gravity, I do not expect his work to completely exhaust the work
> > > needed.
> > I agree. But my problem is what the complete understanding is.
> I do not think that "complete understanding" is possible, only
> asymptotically increasing understanding. Since any observation is
> restricted to a finite number of parameters, "knowledge" of the totality
> is impossible!
Agree also with this.
> > I need only to point at the work that went into QM to illustrate
> > > this! We need to see the big picture!
> > The problem is we cannot have the picture. We have many pieces, but do not
> > have any synthetic picture. This seems to be the case at any age, as we see
> > when reminding the history.
> We must understand how it is that LSs can communicate at all!
> We start by understanding that each observer has its own infinite
> subuniverse of potentially observable events, but can only communicate
> with other observers to the degree that it shares information with them.
Criticizing again the idea of observer (without denying that it is
certainly very useful approximate concept at practical level).
Couldn't communication be basically an observation in which communicators
form larger unit of consciousness?
> This is just a sketch, so the ideas will evolve! I will be discussing
> this line of thinking with Lance when he returns from his trip. The
> issues of "distributivity" and "non-Hausdorff" are keys.
> I expect that it will take a long time for these issues to be
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:10:32 JST