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

*Fri, 22 Oct 1999 14:28:46 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 953] Re: [time 952] Re: [time 951] Goedel's incompleteness implies the existence of time"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 951] Re: [time 950] Re: [time 949] Re: [time 944] Goedel's incompleteness implies the existence of time"

Dear Hitoshi

Hitoshi Kitada wrote:

*>
*

*> Dear Stephen,
*

*>
*

*> Thanks for your comments.
*

You are welcome! ;^)

snip

[SPK]

*> > 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 ..."
*

[HK]

*> In mathematics, the word "generic" may be used in a slightly different way
*

*> than the usual one (I might be wrong as I am not an English speaker): In this
*

*> case, "in generic" means that
*

*>
*

*> [P_L, P] = 0 is "almost" equivalent to [H_L, H] = 0, but is slightly different
*

*> in the sense that in some "special" cases, [P_L, P] = 0 and [H_L, H] not = 0
*

*> hold simultaneously.
*

I see this does make a difference! I have been puzzled by the use of

"almost" and almost all" in math. Might this have to do with measure

zero or measure one situations?

[HK]

*> As I think I am essentially a mathematician who does not think physically, I
*

*> would prefer to follow mathematical usage rather than the usual one :-)
*

:-)

[SPK]

*> > 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")
*

[HK]

*> Yes, the discrepancy between the "objective" universe and the "subjective"
*

*> universe is the cause that time exists subjectively (i.e locally).
*

I have though for a long time that "experiences" or the content of

subjective experience is constructed/simulated/generated/computed by the

never ending mapping between the Whole and the Part. This, in my strange

visual way of thinking, is what constitutes action/movement/etc. in

general...

[SPK]

*> > 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!
*

[HK]

*> It would be pleasure if it could be a help for us to understand those
*

*> problems.
*

:-)

snip

[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";
*

[HK]

*> > > 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.
*

[SPK]

*> > I agree! This is excellent.
*

[HK]

*> I hope that a "proof of the existence" of the exterior system E *implies* the
*

*> "existence" of E.
*

It would seem to if we apply the notion that the "consistency (of the

proof) implies the existence of the object of the proof"!

snip

*> > > 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."
*

[SPK]

*> > 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!
*

[HK]

*> This may be because "their" purpose is not the Truth. Just to get a position
*

*> is their purpose.
*

Unfortunately this is usaully the case! :-(

Later,

Stephen

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 953] Re: [time 952] Re: [time 951] Goedel's incompleteness implies the existence of time"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 951] Re: [time 950] Re: [time 949] Re: [time 944] Goedel's incompleteness implies the existence of time"

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