**Matti Pitkanen** (*matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi*)

*Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:42:37 +0300 (EET DST)*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 656] reply to Stephen"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 654] Re: [time 650] What is Primitive? part 1"**Next in thread:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 662] Re: [time 655] Reply to NOW/PAST question"

[WDE]

*> > Here are some of my thoughts about change pulled from my abstract.
*

*> >
*

*> > This proposal begins with the argument that the linear operators (x),
*

that

*> > dictate the evolution of the state of an object, are themselves
*

measured

in

*> > present states (NOW), not past states (PAST). That is, if NOW = PAST
*

+ x

*

*> > PAST, then NOW/PAST = 1 + x, a trivial result allowing all values of
*

x.

On

*> > the other hand, if it realized that it is more logical and consistent
*

that,

*> > NOW = PAST + x * NOW, then NOW/PAST = 1/(1 - x), a most interesting
*

*> > result that prevents x from achieving unity.
*

[SPK]

*> Very neat! So is unity achieved asymptotically in the infinite limit,
*

*> Lim i -> \inf. : x = 0 ? I am having a hard time with the math. :-(
*

*> (dyslexia sucks!)
*

[WDE]

Associating x with PAST states,

if NOW = PAST + x * PAST => NOW = PAST * (1 + x)

=> NOW/PAST = (1 + x), this is classical (common sense) change.

Or associating x with NOW states,

if NOW = PAST + x * NOW => NOW - x * NOW = PAST

=> NOW * (1 - x) = PAST => NOW/PAST = 1/(1 - x),

this is relativistic (singularity) change. That is,

NOW = PAST/(1 - x). Not, NOW = PAST * (1 + x)

[SPK]

*> Can we think of worlds in terms of different NOW/PAST pairs?
*

[WDE]

I don't think of worlds as NOW/PAST pairs, but you may have

something there. I see the PAST as always gone and that

associating a "change operator" with the PAST is relativistically

wrong (or relativity suggests that it's wrong). Matti, if you are

reading this your help would be appreciated. I may be

misguided, but I look at this as a relativistic first principle,

independent of geometry.

[MP]

a) I could not quite understand you NOW= Past+ x*PAST. If one starts

from Schrodinger equation one has -i dPsi/dt= HPsi.

Psi(t+deltat) = Psi(t) +i*HPsi(t)*Deltat (1+ iH*delta t )*Psi(t)

Psi(t) wold represent past in this and x=1+iH*delta t would represent

x. I do not know whether I have understood correctly.

Psi(t) could be also understood as Psi(t)=U(t-t')*Psi(t'<t), where U(t-t')

=exp(iH(t-t')) is exponent of time indenependent Hamiltonian.

b) Certainly Schrodinger equation is not consistent with relativistic

ideas. Already because one has selected preferred time coordinate (one

can however consider the possibility of preferred time coordinate

fixed by symmetries: in TGD lightcone proper time is this kind of

time coordinate). In relativistic classical field theory

one can solve the time development of field equations defining past

of point as past lightcone and Now depends only on the field values

in Past defined by this past lightcone.

Best,

MP

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 656] reply to Stephen"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 654] Re: [time 650] What is Primitive? part 1"**Next in thread:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 662] Re: [time 655] Reply to NOW/PAST question"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:39 JST
*