Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:07:56 -0400
Dear Hitoshi,
Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
> Thanks for your comments and helps in English. I corrected some points as in
> the LaTeX file attached.
It is my pleasure to help! :-) One final editorial note: Perhaps the
word "general" would be better that "generic" in the phrase: "Thus [P_L,
P] = P_L P - P P_L = 0. But in generic this does not hold because ..."
The final sentence of the paper is especially dear to me: "...time is
an indefinite desire to reach the balance that only the Universe [in
itself] has." I see this as being the key to the phenomenology of time
as expressed in the 'tension' of dissimilarity between the whole of the
Universe as a totality and the parts thereof. I am reminded of my
definitions of the word universe:
1) The Totality of Existence, All that exists. (This is the "objective"
definition")
2) The sum, set or class of all observables that a given observer may be
aware, measure, etc. of. (This is the "subjective definition")
These two aspects, I believe are expressions of the fundamental
dichotomy at the heart of observation and the reason why time is a
subjective phenomena. There is also the possibility that the difficult
issues of entropy and potentials will be better understood in the light
of this brilliant statement by Hitoshi!
> ----- 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.
I agree! This is excellent. For all Time List readers there is a
discussion of the implications of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem at:
http://x29.deja.com/viewthread.xp?AN=445933001&search=thread&svcclass=dnyr&ST=PS&CONTEXT=940602804.2060124203&HIT_CONTEXT=940602804.2060124203&HIT_NUM=0&recnum=%3c36CC02E1.167E@cns.mpg.de%3e%231/1&group=sci.physics.research&frpage=getdoc.xp&back=clarinet
> > 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:
> >
> http://members.home.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Chicken%20Little%20and%20Group%20Theo
> ry.html
>
> 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)
> professor."
I completely agree! It is sad that the Truth is ignored when it is not
convenient! I am still puzzled by the total apathy that is being shown
to thinkers such as yourself and Michael C. Mackey!
Later,
Stephen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 24 1999 - 19:01:01 JST