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

*Sat, 4 Sep 1999 07:41:36 +0300 (EET DST)*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 671] Color constancy, sensory organs as primary experiencers and hologramic brain"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 669] Re: [time 660] Re: [time 659] Cylindrical But Locally Lorentzian Universes"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 666] Re: [time 660] Re: [time 659] Cylindrical But Locally Lorentzian Universes"

On Fri, 3 Sep 1999 WDEshleman@aol.com wrote:

*>
*

*> > > [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)
*

*> >
*

*> > [MP] Sorry for lacking "=" in the formula above.
*

*> >
*

*>
*

*> [WDE]
*

*> No problem, I just copied and pasted independent of the physics. Lets
*

*> see if I can fix it up.
*

*>
*

*> x = iH*(delta t)
*

*> => NOW/PAST = Psi(t+deltat)/Psi(t)
*

*> = { 1+ iH*(delta t ) }
*

*> but, from seeing how relativity works, I suggest,
*

*>
*

*> NOW/PAST = Psi(t+deltat)/Psi(t) = 1/(1 - x)
*

*> = { 1/(1 - iH*(delta t) }
*

*>
*

*> not very much of a difference if,
*

*> iH*(delta t) is small relative to 1,
*

*> but as iH*(delta t) approaches 1,
*

[MP]Can one assum this : delta t is in principle very small time interval

and formula holds precisely only in the limit delta t-->0?

Perhaps we mean with x quite different things?

*> NOW/PAST = Psi(t+deltat)/Psi(t) approaches infinity,
*

*> and I suggest that this is one of the requirements
*

*> for unification of Relativity and QM.
*

*> That is, if x = v^2/c^2,
*

[MP] The identification of x with v^2/c^2 is what I do not understand.

It is certainly something very different from what I considered to be

x: in my case x would be operator.

*>
*

*> then, { ( M ) }^2 = { (M_0)^2 } / (1 - x),
*

*> and, { ( T ) }^2 = { (T_0)^2 } / (1 - x),
*

*> and, { ( L ) }^2 = { (L_0)^2 } * (1 - x).
*

*>
*

*> suggest the necessity to do the same for QM. Please
*

*> recomment on the fixed equations.
*

[MP] What troubles me is the identification of x. I would identify

it as operator. My formula was also for infinitesimal time interval

delta t. Perhaps we understand by z quite different things. Is your fomula

really consistent with Schrodinger equation?

*>
*

*>
*

*> Matti, you may
*

*> think it is contrary to common sense when I propose that
*

*> NOW is NOT "pushed" from the PAST by a PAST operator,
*

*> but that the PAST was attracted to all possible NOW's by
*

*> an operator that only becomes evaluated in the NOW.
*

*> Another way of saying this is that NOW is attracted to
*

*> all FUTUREs by an operator to be measured in the FUTURE.
*

*> My disclaimer is that this state of affairs is due a subjective
*

*> limitation of the observer and by "psychophysical parallelism",
*

*> all objects are observers. And, that the underlying objective
*

*> structure has been programmed to subjectively mimic an
*

*> attraction to the FUTURE by objectively requiring every
*

*> augmentation of state in a given world to be accompanied by
*

*> related augmentations in a majority of other worlds. That is,
*

*> ( 1 + x ) objectively in multiplicity leads to a subjective
*

*> reality where the FUTURE seems to attract the PRESENT.
*

The idea of future attracting present is attractive metaphor.

In my own framework it is realized as the drift of cognitive

spacetime sheets in future lightcone: gradual drift quantum jump

by quantum jump to the future realizes the idea about motion in

time direction, which of course is nonsensical in purely classical

physics.

Your augmentation is something analogous to the gradual lenghening

of subjective memory of self after its wake-up: the heap of

moments of consciousness becomes gradually higher quantum jump

by quantum jump. But all this is about subjective experience

in my case.

*> My infinite products are simply candidates for role of the
*

*> objective multiplicity that subjectively offers the seemingly
*

*> non-intuitive conclusions drawn above.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> Sincerely,
*

*>
*

*> Bill
*

*>
*

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 671] Color constancy, sensory organs as primary experiencers and hologramic brain"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 669] Re: [time 660] Re: [time 659] Cylindrical But Locally Lorentzian Universes"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 666] Re: [time 660] Re: [time 659] Cylindrical But Locally Lorentzian Universes"

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