Stephen P. King (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 20 May 1999 08:32:02 -0400
Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> 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
> > snip
> > > 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.
I agree, but I am thinking of the nature of these space-times that are
superposed. Are they a priori definite or are they even categorizable as
space-times? Could you explain your take on the philosophical problems
implied by my hypothesis? I am very happy for a critique on this notion!
> 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?
Yes, each observation involves only finite amounts of information and
the content changes in every moment of conscious! How this changes and
what are the trade-offs is important. The statement "consistency implies
existence" is a two edged sword! We must understand that given finite
information only a lower bound can be placed on the internal consistensy
of observables. Reality, for me, is the Totality and it is, as a whole,
unknowable, e.g. it is impossible to map an infinite set onto a finite
set in a unique manner. Or am I wrong on that? :)
> > snip
> > > > 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?
Yes! :) Communication acts are mappings from one space-time to another,
if we follow Edelman's line of thinking in "Bright Air, Brilliant Fire"
so your notion are accurate. I am trying to understand consciousness as
a quantum-like action and can be composed to for different sized units.
The information content can vary within the uncertainty trade-offs so it
is not an atom in the classical sense. The closest I have seen this idea
discussed is in Pratt's papers. I wil try to write up this more.
The key understanding needed is that observations involve computation
of the involved minima. Such are not "free"! The computation of the
Lagrangian of a system has a price tag in free energy available to an
observer. When we think about the computations involve in the traveling
saleman problem we see clear example of this notion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:10:32 JST