Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Thu, 27 May 1999 15:16:59 -0400
Dear Hitoshi,
Please substitute this post for my last... :)
Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
> I feel by your postings that you seem to try to define the subjectivity by
> the degree of resonance to it. Or at least it seems to me that you need to
> do so if you would proceed to the direction that information could play some
> definite roles in your thought.
I am trying to... ;)
> Maybe you could define a subject as the existence that can have some
> resonance from others or other observers, thus subjectivity becomes a
> relative notion.
Umm, I had not thought of it those words! :) Yes, I believe that
is
true. I am trying to model subjectivity such that we can deal with many
observers having their own subjectivity... Resonance then, to me,
relates to the fuzzy mutual entropy (using Kosko's term) between
observers. (http://www.phptr.com/ptrbooks/esm_0131249916.html,
http://www.ercb.com/ddj/1998/ddj.9805.html Ironically, the frequentist
type of probability theory
(http://www.odu.edu/~fernand/e520sp99/second/index.htm) is derivable,
claims Kosko, from simpler postulates...
quoting from http://www.ercb.com/ddj/1998/ddj.9805.html:
"Chapter 12, entitled "Fuzzy Cubes And Fuzzy Mutual Entropy," is a tour
de force. Given that a single fuzzy variable can be mapped continuously
over the [(0,0),(1,0)]
line, then two fuzzy variables map to the unit square
[(0,0),(1,0),(1,1),(0,1)]; three map to the unit cube; and n variables
map to the n-dimensional hypercube. The information state within the
fuzzy cube is continuous, with the center paradox point being the
fuzziest of the fuzzy. Kosko deduces from the presence of the divergence
operator in the information field equations that fuzzy computations can
be thought of as information fluid calculations."
I have this and would like to discuss it. I understand Ben
distaste for
fuzzy sets and I do understand the distributivity issue... I am just
trying to explore all possible formalisms. :)
> Matti's "absolute information," if existed, might be a one that cannot be
> reduced to other things like the axioms and undefined terms in mathematical
> theory. We, the older aged people tend to think ourselves as the absolute
> criterion to judge the validity of a theory. You young people seem
> different. I feel this at classrooms when I am giving lectures to young
> students and have feedbacks from them. They seem to judge by majority vote.
> The truth seems not a one that should be judged by reason for them. Or it
> might be more correct to say that their concerns are in their community, not
> in the solitary truth. This generation difference might be the cause of the
> difficulty of our communication. In other words, the problems you are
> considering and the ones we are considering might be different. How do you
> think?
I find that the "truth by majority vote" is more prevalent that
suspected! It is quite possible that that we humans call "truth" is
merely what we agree upon. I think of this as those hyper-volumes of
each individual's space-time frame that overlap with each other. This
gives an intersection that is weighted by the degree of "influence" that
an observer has upon others, e.g. how many other individual's space-time
frames are subsets (or complete bisimulations!) of one observer's
space-time frame. Thus we have the idea that our "world" is what we have
in common, not something that "exists" separately.
As people age, I have noticed that there is the tendency to become
ossified (http://www.znet.com/~normanl/philo2.htm)and make the
assumptions that
you state. :) It could be that it is the result of habituation and
becoming comfortable in one's situation -we stop looking for
contradictions. The young tend to be iconoclast.
(http://ecco.bsee.swin.edu.au/text/ddict/ICONOCLAST.html)
I am in the midst of thinking about Matti's last post ([time
359]) and
find myself agreeing with him completely, just discussing a few
subtleties. I am just making the point that Absolute information implies
"infinite knowability" if they are to be used to determine "Absolute
Truths" I say: "I think this due to the very nature of "knowability",
e.g. it is not possible to "know" an infinite amount of information..."
I believe this connects directly to your method of deriving the
Uncertainty Principle using the limit of infinite time. Bart Kosko's
ideas in Chapter 12 of the book reference above gives another way of
thinking of this, thus my desire to discuss his work further.
> Best wishes,
> Hitoshi
>
> PS I feel tired after today's lectures, which might let me write this :)
:) I am now a full time baby sitter for my children, so I can
dedicate
more of my time to thinking and writing. :) (And editing my words! Sorry
about that.)
Kindest regards,
Stephen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:10:32 JST