[time 844] Re: [time 841] Re: [time 839] What does an LS observe?

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:54:06 +0900

Dear Stephen,

Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com> wrote:

Subject: [time 841] Re: [time 839] What does an LS observe?

> Dear Hitoshi,
> Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> >
> > Dear Stephen,
> >
> > Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > Subject: [time 838] Re: [Time 837]
> >
> > > Dear Friends,
> > >
> > > Here is am example of that I was talking about in my last post!
> > >
> >
> > 38692987.902103121&hitnum=1
> > >
> > > Subject:Re: Does a fundamental time exist in GR and QM?
> > > Date: 1999/09/23
> > > Author: Toby Bartels <toby@ugcs.caltech.edu>
> > > > Vesselin G Gueorguiev <vesselin@baton.phys.lsu.edu>
> > > > wrote:
> [VGG]
> > > > I could be wrong, but I tend to think of any chart as a physical
> > > > who is siting at the origin and does measurements.
> [TB]
> > > A physical observer provides only an *infinitesimal* chart.
> > > As an observer, I define x,y,z,t axes going out from me (the origin),
> > > but I can't describe how the axes will curve as they leave me.
> [HK]
> > This is exactly what I assume about local systems. The observer (each of
> > does not know beforehand how the space is curved. We have to assume our
> > is the standard, thus it does not have any curvature. Viz. our local
> > must be Euclidean for each of us.
> Yes, but is it Euclidean as given by some external absolute standard?
> No! We have to look carefully at this. Each LS has its own measure of
> "Euclidean". Since there is no common space or connection to parallel
> transport some hypothetical absolute rigid ruler, it is impossible to
> discover a contradiction between the measures of each LS. This would
> appear to violate my falsifiability notion, but it does not. ;-)
> The difficulty that this line of thinking has for many is that it
> denies the possibility of an absolute standard for finite entities. I
> personally do not see a problem with this as it eliminates the last
> vestiges of preferred frames.
> I can see that when we introduce the notion that the LS is subjective,
> it implies a solipsism of sorts! But this is a bonus, not a failure. The
> key point is that there is not just one observer/LS that has its world
> of experience as "virtual images" or "figments of their mind", all LSs
> do! Just like Leibnitzian monads, we do not need windows only
> constructable "harmony", e.g. not "pre-ordained"!
> [TB]
> > > So, I can't define a chart large enough to contain two distinct points
> > > and any geodesic linking them -- which is what you wanted here.
> [HK]
> > In this point I differ from his. We each cannot know the curvature if it
> > existed, even if we could reach to the inifinite point in our local system
> > far as we remain inside it. Only when we open our eyes and see the
> > the outside tells us it might be different from our own world (LS). Thus
> > observation gives us GR.
> I think that it is what we refer to as "communicating about our
> observations" that gives us GR. An observation, in the passive sense,
> can not reveal curvature, as you point out. When we "communicate", we
> are simulating what other LSs would perceive, and since their identity
> (Matti's SELF) is different, a difference, or better put, distortion
> appears in our perceptions.
> The subtle nature of bisimulation is the key to understanding this
> notion. We can never escape from Platonic Cave's chains and bindings -
> the "inside", but we can simulate "what it might be like" outside! Note
> that when we say "it might be like X", we are talking about
> probabilities! ;-) What we need to discuss is how LSs can "simulate"
> each others behavior! Bisimulation is a pair of systems simulating each
> other...

And, the bisimulation, i.e. the interaction between QM and GR occurs inside
our mind, not outside.

> Later,
> Stephen

Best wishes,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:40:46 JST