Hitoshi Kitada (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 1 Oct 1999 16:24:49 +0900
Stephen P. King <email@example.com> wrote:
Subject: [time 845] Re: [time 844] Re: [time 841] Re: [time 839] What does an
> Dear Hitoshi,
> Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> > > 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
> > our mind, not outside.
> Yes! But the means by which the information coding the interaction is
> expressed is important. This is why I am tentatively advancing the idea
> of matter/information duality (Phylus/Logos); not a duality in the
> Cartesian sense, but a duality of the mathematical sense, like linear
> functionals are dual to vectors...
> What is called "matter" by an LS, that is considered "outside" is the
> dual of information "inside" the LS. This implies directly something in
> contradiction to common sense! The Rock that I kick and the Rock that
> you kick are never "one and the same" Rock, they are just both members
> of the same equivalence class.
I agree. The rock you kick is the conventional way of description of
phenomena, and my rock is the physical setting when seeing the outside. You
propose alternative way of description of phenomena by informational words
with dualistic view to the outside and inside, and I propose that the place
where the "phenomena" occur is not outside, which
physics takes for granted, but it is inside our mind where the problems of
physics appear; the interaction between QM and GR is not outside but inside us
and thus something must have been overlooked by the conventional physical
Both viewpoints are in the same category in the sense that they question the
fundamental assumption of conventional physical thinking with the recognition
that there certainly exists the inside, which physics has been neglecting
since the age of Galileo.
> This is hard to swallow; I know, but if
> we have proven that LS's are disjoint then so must be their space-times
> and their momentum-energy "content"!
> On the other hand, we have the transcendental thinking of Dr. Palmer.
> His "holons" seem to correspond to situations were the duality of LSs is
> invertible. The greatest example of this is at the level of the Universe
> as the Totality of existence. What happens when we have finite LSs that
> are invertible? I think that these are the "bound states"???
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:40:46 JST