[time 1038] Re: [time 1033] [Interesting!] Thoughts

Stephen Paul King (stephenk1@home.com)
Thu, 25 Nov 1999 12:00:34 -0500

Dear Hitoshi and folks,

        This pause is bursting with creativity! :-) Please excuse the
strangeness of my thinking... :-)

Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> Dear Tito and All,
> I.Vecchi <vecchi@weirdtech.com> wrote:
> Subject: [time 1031] Re: [time 1023] Re: [time 1021] Thoughts
> > I wonder whether the issue of death has ever been analyzed in a QM
> > perspective.
> >
> > "... since Death is the faithful Wife, who succeeds the deceitful
> > Mistress,
> > let's not receive Her as a stranger, nor flee with Her ..."
> >
> > That's the Italian poet Giani Stuparich, in my clumsy translation.
> >
> > My condolences to Hitoshi and regards to all,
> Thank you very much. Death is a thing inevitable for all mortal things. I have
> been reminded of this these days.
> In QM perspective the life is an eigenstate of an LS, and the death would be a
> scattering state. Actually all observable LSs are in scatttering states and thus
> are in the process to their death: Life as an eigenstate is an idealization and
> the actual life would be in the state of resonance, that means they have a long
> time before going to decompose into pieces. Death is thus inherent in life and
> all lifes are on the eventual process to death .
        This is a wonderful metaphor for us to use as a seed. We can associate
the notion of death to the notion of meaninglessness or
dedifferentiation. These two notions give us an insight into the way
matter (Body) and information (Mind) have some thing in common: their
dynamical behavior!
        In thermodynamics we learn about "Closed matter systems tend to an
equilibrium (if disturbed)", but how is it possible to disturb a closed
system? By the definition of the word "closed" we should infer that we
are unable to interact with them in any way other than some possibility
of action-at-a-distance.
        When we think of LSs as closed quantum mechanical systems, how could
they possibly interact? Perhaps we can answer this question by looking
at the meaning of interact. How could we have contrapositive implication
of the statement "A interacted with B" when A and B are disjoint LSs?
What would be the "symptoms" of interaction? Could we say, in a
metaphorical sense, that given another system X, X could somehow be
affected by the result of the interaction of A and B? If "affected"
implied that some deviation from some "norm" occurred in an otherwise
quiescent X.
        Note that this mental picture seems to seeking the notion of time in
the sense that another tacit observer, the reader of these words would
automatically assume that it can detect this "deviation from some norm"
without using the rules! That is a mistake! It appears that we
automatically define the state "prior" of a deviation is the "most
normal" and the state that deviates from such is posterior.
        Do we not naturally use the "<" (or ">" for the reversed) operation to
imply temporal ordering? Why do we buy the ideas that "space-time
events" tacitly mean: "something occurred that deviated from some local
norm at this infinitesimal point"? HUH? How could anything "meaningful"
happen inside an infinitesimal ball? It would have a very weird volume,
almost all of it would be "stuck" to the surface. What would cause that?
To put it is the Southern USA way of talking, "Why ain't it got a
middle?" For one thing, how many dimensions could be fitted into such?
When, its group of symmetric rotations, if it where 3-dimensional, would
be those of a perfect sphere! Umm, what algebraic group represents such?
A Lie group?!
        Now, does there exist a concept of "length" on this sphere that is
capable of making any measurements? e.g. could we invision a demon that
could run around this sphere measuring its size? No! For one thing, such
a creature could not move! The very idea of parallel transport tacitly
assumes the existence of some preternatural entity that can some how
"remember" its exact length under arbitrary motions, but in this
situation the demon would be trapped, unable to move because it can not
have "zero volume" and exist!
        The requirement of memory implies a property! That change can be
observed and/or "represented"! Again, exactly how do we make a
representation? Is a {"representation R of system A"} = {A}? Yes, if and
only if there exist no other observer capable of communicating a
contradiction! Umm, "migrating inconsistencies" => moving
contradictions? Contradiction of what? Some norm!
        Can a Universal norm be universally decibable in a finite number of
discrete steps? My conjecture: No! So, can a representation of some
"finite epsilon Yes" exist? Does ~~{A} = {A} under "all" conditions?
What if we considered the [R(A), A] as being the range of conditions
under which some finite epsilon of error is allowed in order to
accommodate the existence of the undecibability of the universality of a

        Does my Conjecture sound like the Halting Problem of Turing Machines?
It does to me...

        That happens when we try to define an infinitesimal time interval
within a "frozen" Minkowskian manifold and take into account the
Heisenberg Uncertainty? It "boils"! What is the topology of a boiling
fluid? How can we even think of such a concept?

        Umm, I got off my initial subject! Umm, how much entropy is necessarily
generated to remove all inconsistency from a Complete Atomic Bolean
Algebra that can be represented within an infinitesimal surface area? I
don't know!
        I found this in Van Benthem's book (The Logic of Time : A
Model-Theoretic Investigation into the Varieties of Temporal Ontology
and Temporal Discourse (Synthese Library, Vol 156) Johan Van Benthem /
2nd edition (March 1991) Kluwer Academic Publishers; ISBN: 0792310810),
pg. 150 :

"...the whole phenomenon of 'consecutio temporum' seems to require a
constant adjustment of perspective: one moves from context to context
when evaluating the sentence."

        Well, enough of my rambling! :-)



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Dec 01 1999 - 01:15:40 JST