Hitoshi Kitada (email@example.com)
Fri, 1 Oct 1999 12:54:06 +0900
Stephen P. King <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Subject: [time 841] Re: [time 839] What does an LS observe?
> Dear Hitoshi,
> Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> > Dear Stephen,
> > Stephen P. King <email@example.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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > > Vesselin G Gueorguiev <email@example.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > I could be wrong, but I tend to think of any chart as a physical
> > > > who is siting at the origin and does measurements.
> > > 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.
> > 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"!
> > > 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.
> > 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
And, the bisimulation, i.e. the interaction between QM and GR occurs inside
our mind, not outside.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:40:46 JST