Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Thu, 28 Oct 1999 14:24:07 +0900
Dear Bill,
----- Original Message -----
From: <WDEshleman@aol.com>
To: <hitoshi@kitada.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: [time 949] Goedel's incompleteness imp
> Hitoshi,
> Here is my attempt to modify what you said
> in time_VI (NE USA English).
> I may have altered some meanings,
> so don't feel that you must recognize my
> modifications. The attached file "time6"
> has the changes. I checked yours and mine
> with Norton File Compare and all seems to
> be still working.
> Sincerely,
> Bill Eshleman
>
Thanks for your attempt to modify my paper in order to make it more English
and for your comments implied there. It is difficult for Japanese to
understand the usage of the articles "the" and "a" and the distinction of the
plural and singular. I thank you for your helps. I attach new time_VI.tex.
There are some points I did not follow your modifications, where I think the
modification changes my meaning or implication:
****** \1-bill\time6.tex
Thus we have to assume that any human observer sees a part
or subsystem $L$ of the universe and never has knowledge of the total
Hamiltonian $H$ in \eq{1} by his observation. Here the
****** time_VI.tex
Thus we have to assume that any human observer sees a part
or subsystem $L$ of the universe and never gets the total
Hamiltonian $H$ in \eq{1} by his observation. Here the
******
To get the Hamiltonian and to know it are different in my context. The former
includes e.g. feeling the Hamiltonian, not just knowing it exactly. In fact
physicists have some sense to find Hamiltonians or Lagrangians before knowing
it.
****** \1-bill\time6.tex
total Hamiltonian $H$ is an {\it ideal} Hamiltonian
that might only be known by ``God." In other words, a consequence
from G\"odel's theorem is that the Hamiltonian that an
****** time_VI.tex
total Hamiltonian $H$ is an {\it ideal} Hamiltonian
that might be gotten by ``God." In other words, a consequence
from G\"odel's theorem is that the Hamiltonian that an
******
Here is an implication that not "only" God gets the Hamiltonian, but also we
can "feel" it in some state. I am not saying some trance state.
****** \1-bill\time6.tex
between $L$ and $E$ is a constant operator.
This is the same as stating that the interaction does not
exist, thus reduces to the case $I=0$ above.
****** time_VI.tex
between $L$ and $E$ is a constant operator.
This is the same as that the interaction does not
exist, thus reduces to the case $I=0$ above.
******
The addition of "stating " seems to change the statement slightly.
****** \1-bill\time6.tex
Thus $[P_L,P] = P_LP - PP_L = 0$.
But in general this does not hold because
$$
****** time_VI.tex
Thus $[P_L,P] = P_LP - PP_L = 0$.
But in generic this does not hold because
$$
******
"in general this does not hold" means "this does not hold" but as I wrote to
Stephen, there is a possibility that "this does hold" so I use "in generic."
****** \1-bill\time6.tex
Moreover the argument there implies that $I$ does not commute with
at least one of $H_L$ or $H_E$. Now suppose that $I$ does commute with
both of $H_L$ and $H_E$. Then by spectral theory for
****** time_VI.tex
Moreover the argument there implies that $I$ does not commute with
at least one of $H_L$ or $H_E$. To see this, suppose
that $I$ commutes with
both of $H_L$ and $H_E$. Then by spectral theory for
******
I changed the words and stated explicitly what we do at this point.
****** \1-bill\time6.tex
caused by the existence of an exterior region yields time.
In other words, time is an indefinite desire to reach a
balance that only the universe has access.
****** time_VI.tex
caused by the existence of an exterior region yields time.
In other words, time is an indefinite desire to reach the
balance that only the universe has.
******
The balance is a unique balance that the universe has. So I used "the" here. I
am though not sure with the usage of article. The "only" might look
inconsistent to what I wrote above: "not "only" God gets the Hamiltonian, but
also we can "feel" it in some state." But this in fact means that we can be
*the same as* the universe in some case, so "only" does not contradict. The
balance is the universe itself (or another name of it), and it is not the one
to be accessed in my context.
I add my new acknowledgements whose English is improved according to your
comment. As I was not aware of your surname during the communication in the
list, I could not include your name in the previous versions. I thank any
member who reads this list, which helps us in developing our thoughts.
{\bf Acknowledgements.} I wish to express my appreciation to
the members of Time Mailing List at http://www.kitada.com/
for giving me the opportunity to consider the present problem.
Special thanks are addressed to Lancelot R. Fletcher, Stephen
Paul King, Benjamin Nathaniel Goertzel, Bill Eshleman,
Matti Pitkanen, whose stimulating discussions with me on
the list have led me to consider the present problem.
I especially thank Stephen and Bill for their comments
on the earlier drafts to improve my English and descriptions.
Best wishes,
Hitoshi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Nov 01 1999 - 01:24:39 JST