Hitoshi Kitada (email@example.com)
Tue, 7 Sep 1999 01:31:27 +0900
Bill <WDEshleman@aol.com> wrote:
Subject: [time 694] Re: [time 674] Reply to NOW/PAST question
> Hitoshi, Matti, and Stephen,
> I wish I had said that. We are discussing some competing
> notions of change. Hitoshi's result for Schroedinger case,
> Psi(t+Deltat) = exp(x) * Psi(t)
> = (1+ x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + x^4/4! + ...) Psi(t), (A)
> is partitioned between the extremes,
> Psi(t+Deltat) = (1 + x) * Psi(t) (B)
> Psi(t+Deltat) = Psi(t) / (1 - x) (C)
> And A is very close to the average of B and C, below x = 0.1 .
> B implies that the future is entirely determined by full knowledge
> of the present. Or, FUTURE = (1 + x) * PRESENT.
> C implies that the present is determined by knowledge that
> will only be complete upon arriving at the present. Or,
> NOW = PAST + x * NOW => NOW = PAST/(1 - x).
> A implies that the future is entirely determined by knowledge
> of the present and additional knowledge of the past (or at
> least past knowledge of the properties of exp(x) ).
> Given a choice, I choose C because it is suggested
> by Relativity. Eg., M^2 = (M_0)^2 + (v^2/c^2) * M^2
> => M^2 = (M_0)^2 / (1 - v^2/c^2). Because it
> seems to be a reason for believing that it is the
> possibilities of the future that attract the present
> to it. And because I some interesting notions
> and additional identities concerning 1/(1 - x).
> Now, if Relativity turned out to be, as in A,
> M^2 = exp(v^2/c^2) * (M_0)^2,
> I could see a unification by the similarity of their
> "first principle of change." Since this does not appear to be
> true for Relativity, I am then prone to at least question
> and speculate whether we ought to consider wave equations that
> do follow C's notion of change? If you reply with a wave
> equation for the notion of C, I will appreciate it alot.
> Why/how? Because I am at a stage where consistency is far
> more important than being correct.
I do not think these notions of change competing. Your claim for C is correct
in observation, while A is also correct inside an LS with respect to its own
time. These two notions of change are consistent, whose proof I refer to the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:39 JST