**Stephen P. King** (*stephenk1@home.com*)

*Mon, 04 Oct 1999 21:32:39 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 885] Re: [time 879] Re: [time 877] Re: Your assumption"**Previous message:**Stephen Paul King: "[time 883] Re: Reviving particle democracy"

Dear Lance and Friends,

I have been thinking hard about the meaning of clocking and am always

arriving at the notion that clocking is the invertible mapping of a set

of objects to a set of representations. This seems to follow from the

naive definition in conventional physics of a clocking as the mapping of

the set of space-time events to the set of numbers R^1.

If we are to consider the possibility that each LS is an observer and

that the observations of LSs are of particles as external centers of

mass of other LSs, then would there not be a space-time like

relationship between the particles that are the objects of observation

of any given LS? Could we define "events" in terms of LSs such that a

conventional clocking, as defined above, can be recovered under specific

circumstances?

The key difference I see in local system theory is that it denies the

possibility of unique a priori and absolute transitivity orderings of

events for all possible observers. This would be problematic unless we

can redefine causality, e.g. the transitivity operation, such that it

would be a constructive process.

I am advocating the idea that the behavior of information that is

implicit in the configurations of particles that are observed by an LS

is just as important as the behavior of the particles themselves. I say

configuration A of particles causes (->) configuration B iff (if and

only if) the information implicit in B (B*) logically entails (<-) the

information implicit in A (A*). We then define transitivity in this

context as:

A -> B & B -> C == A -> C iff A* <- B* & C* <- B* == C* <- A*. (1)

The mapping discussed above shows up when we set up (1) as a

commutation diagram:

A -> B B -> C A -> C

| | & | | == | |

A* <- B* B* <- C* A* <- C*

The horizontal lines represent the mappings...

I hope my abuse of notation is forgivable. ;^) Does this idea make

sense and, even more importantly, is it helpful?

Another related idea is that when we consider all physical processes as

generating entropy and the idea that "in a closed system the total

entropy plus information remains fixed" implies that the selection of

the "next" event is a computation of the logical precedence of the

information content of the event's "prior". This amounts to saying that

the evolution of matter (towards complete thermodynamic equilibrium) is

dual to the evolution of information (towards a complete

equidistribution of information).

Kindest regards,

Stephen

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 885] Re: [time 879] Re: [time 877] Re: Your assumption"**Previous message:**Stephen Paul King: "[time 883] Re: Reviving particle democracy"

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