Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:06:16 +0900
Dear Stephen,
Thanks for your explanation.
Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com> wrote:
Subject: [time 962] Re: [time 961] Re: [time 959] [Fwd: This Week's Finds in
Mathematical Physics (Week 141)]
> Dear Hitoshi and Friends,
>
> Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> >
> > Is John Baez a journalist?
>
> No, I would not say that Baez is a journalist, he is a "mathematical
> physicist who specializes in quantum gravity and n-category theory"
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/
>
> He writes a column called "This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics"
> that outlines his adventures, it is like a public diary...
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/TWF.html
>
> > Paraconsistency is a modification of consistency so that paradoxes like
the
> > one by Russell's are admitted but still theories have meanings, i.e. such
> > theories should be nontrivial.
> >
> > I agree with that this is a nice modification, and may be worth being
> > researched.
> definition: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/
>
> I found this. It looks interesting!
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/97/HPL-97-129.html
>
> Here is a philosopher's page on the subject:
> http://members.tripod.com/Lonego/
>
> In Japanese
> http://www.swlab.csce.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~goshi/semi/a94spicis/sld024.htm
>
> A big list of different kinds of logics!
> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/branches.htm
>
> [I am reminded of what happened when the parallel postulate was
> questioned! %^} ]
>
> > But where is Baez's contribution in the news group more than a role of a
> > moderator of the group?
>
> Oh, boy, Baez is *very* active in the discussions going on in the
> sci.physics.research news group. I find that he has some very good ideas
> [n-category theory] and would very much like to get him to take an
> objective (unprejudiced) look at Local Systems theory to see his
> response, since he is very much aware of the Problem of Time!
I am trying him, sending some of my papers to him.
> Unfortunately, the theory's implication that the Big Bang is an
> (optical?) illusion is very hard for most to swallow! :-(
Is the explanation given in time_II.tex and time_IV.tex not sufficient
explanation?
Best wishes,
Hitoshi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Nov 01 1999 - 01:24:39 JST