[time 949] Re: [time 944] Goedel's incompleteness implies the existence of time

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 23:00:15 +0900

Dear Stephen,

Thanks for your comments and helps in English. I corrected some points as in
the LaTeX file attached.

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com>
To: Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@kitada.com>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 1999 5:21 AM
Subject: [time 944] Goedel's incompleteness implies the existence of time

> Hi Hitoshi,
> I am presenting this version of your paper with some editorial comments
> and pointers in [boxes] Egrammatical suggestions are not labeled EUmm,
> it looks like I messed up the formatting of the original! :-(
> >>Here is some excerpt from time_VI.tex. LaTeX file is attached, which is
> available also at
> http://www.kitada.com/time_VI.tex (the link is not yet made in
> index.html)
> A key is Goedel's incompleteness theorem, which assures the existence of
> (local) time.>>
> [SPK]
> We need to make this solid! I agree completely with the notion, having
> independently arrived at a similar conclusion, but it appears that the
> applicability of Goedel's Incompleteness theorem (GIT) to the Universe
> is controversial to many people. I fail to see the problem that such
> would have except perhaps they would like a solid, read "explicit",
> mathematical relationship between physics and logic, which is the domain
> of GIT]
> We need to show that "observer cannot know that $E$ exists" follows
> explicitly from "The theory of physics therefore includes an undecidable
> proposition";

This should be read

> "observer cannot know that $E$ exists" contradicts
> "The theory of physics therefore includes an undecidable
> proposition"

The point in this problem would be to show that one i.e. observer can
construct a proposition that proves the existence of the exterior $E$. I
changed the descriptions in sections 2 and 5 as in the attached file.

> this must be air-tight! I believe that your idea here is
> correct, but I believe that we must be able to defend against the
> skepticism. Here is an example:

The understanding here seems typical for physicists who do not understand what
is formal theory or system. Even in Princeton when Goedel was an associated
professor yet many years after his proof of incompletness, some professor said
in front of him that logic did not make any progress since the age of
Aristotle. Many of today's physicists are the same as that "some (stupid)

> Later,
> Stephen

Best wishes,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 24 1999 - 19:01:01 JST