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

*Thu, 25 Nov 1999 12:00:34 -0500*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen Paul King: "[time 1039] [Fwd: "Machines, Logic and Quantum Physics"]"**Previous message:**ca314159: "[time 1037] Thanksgiving"**Next in thread:**ca314159: "[time 1040] Context shifting"

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,
*

[HK]

*> 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

norm.

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! :-)

Later,

Stephen

**Next message:**Stephen Paul King: "[time 1039] [Fwd: "Machines, Logic and Quantum Physics"]"**Previous message:**ca314159: "[time 1037] Thanksgiving"**Next in thread:**ca314159: "[time 1040] Context shifting"

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