[time 983] RE: [time 982] Re: [time 979] RE: [time 978] a fundamental question on QM time

Koichiro Matsuno (kmatsuno@vos.nagaokaut.ac.jp)
Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:45:12 +0900

Dear Hitoshi and All

   Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@kitada.com> wrote

>Could you explain in concrete examples what kind of leftover is?
>> The leftover constantly serves as an impetus
>> for moving the subsequent progressive mode.
>How does the "impetus" move "the subsequent progressive mode?"

   Let me try some attempt. One thing we remember about the present
progressive tense is that it is in the middle voice, neither exclusively in
the active nor in the passive voice. Suppose I am walking through the crowds
as avoiding collisions with others. Then, I recognize that others are doing
the same on the spot. This means that the present progressive is necessarily
in the internalist or local perspective and multi-agential. I also recognize
that the factor driving me walking through the crowds is a possible
collision with others which would be inflicted upon me unless I do
otherwise. That is the leftover passed from the preceding progressive mode,
and serves as the motive factor for the succeeding progressive mode.
Everybody in the crowds is constantly being part of the moving obstacle to
everybody else.

>> Strangely enough, however, both
>> CM and QM start from the categorical statements made in the present
>>tense, and the present progressive is simply taken to be a derivative
>>from the present tense there.
>I think you are talking of "usual" QM, not any of its variants as Matti's
>or mine or any others'?

   Any universal statement made in the present tense is about either the
general universal or the universal singularis. I understand that QM in the
standard practice is upon categorical statements on the general universals
such as unitarity, whereas your new attempts are on QM about the singular
universals. The difference is significant. Since any experience in our
empirical world is about concrete particulars and since no one can
experience general universals off hand, our linguistic vehicle suitable for
approaching the concrete particulars should be through the singular
universals in the present tense instead of through the general universals.
Although one may find a lot of nice things on the general universals as in
the form of various conservation laws, what is unique to the singular
universals stated in the present tense is about their indefiniteness,
variability and multi-agentiality. The present progressive mode that can
also be referred to as singular universals in the present tense is a gift
from our linguistic institution enabling us to cope with emergent phenomena
including biological evolution and self-organization. Of course, if we are
lucky enough, it may be possible to get something about the general
universals from the singular universal as appealing to an abstraction from
the latter in one way or another.

>And time that implies the exact relation x=tv would be the one that
>should be talked about in present tense and thus is a classical notion that
>remains in QM which should be talked of in the present progressive mode?

   Experiencing as a basic ingredient of our empirical world is always about
concrete particulars. The linguistic means for approaching the concrete
particulars is through either the progressive or the perfect mode. A crucial
issue in this regard would be how can one face these concrete particulars in
the present tense. We cannot open our mouth unless the present tense is
available. One candidate for this is to refer to the record registered in
the present perfect mode in the present tense, since the record, once
completed, remains there as it is at any present moment. Although there is
nothing wrong with this time-honored practice of reaching the present tense,
its inevitable drawback is that it cannot address the non-frozen leftover or
moving obstacles passed over from the preceding progressive mode. One more
candidate for reaching the present tense as starting from the present
progressive is to refer to the non-frozen leftover in the present tense,
that remains singularly unique and also universal though necessarily
indefinite and variable in its implication. Quantum mechanics is potentially
open to such concrete particulars (e.g., measurement). Your Local Systems
seem to me concretely particular enough when addressed in the present
progressive tense, while singularly universal when referred to in the
present tense.

   Koichiro Matsuno

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Dec 01 1999 - 01:15:39 JST