[time 1052] Re: [time 1051] Re: [time 1049] Re: [time 1047] Re: [time 1045] Re: [time 1044] The Un-logic

ca314159 (ca314159@bestweb.net)
Sun, 21 Nov 1999 07:57:48 -0800

Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> Dear Robert and all,
> ca314159 <ca314159@bestweb.net> wrote:
> > > > When looking at a painting (reflected light), two people see much
> > > > that is the same, and this is their global commonality analogous
> > > > to common or global time, and what they don't see in common is due
> > > > to superpositional interference and results in their local distinctions
> > > > or analogously their local times.
> > >
> > > Two observers are not synchronous much in this case.
> >
> > I get the impression, that the comparison of the
> > individual superpositions here, is an entanglement.
> I agree. The combination of two observers' local systems L_1 and L_2 is
> described by a tensor product \HH_1 x \HH_2 of two Hilbert spaces HH_1 and HH_2
> each of which is the Hilbert space of the observers 1 and 2. If entanglement
> is understood as a property of tensor products, two observers are described
> by an entanglement.

    OK, I understand now. Yes, this is the quantum entanglement.
    These folk don't speak from the heart. They either hide what they mean
    or over-hype it, but what they are doing seems in the right
    direction in a very general sense:


    All this reminds me of Asimov's "I, Robot" and soon we will have
    the "positronic" brain and robo-psychologists. This was my model
    for such a brain and it's psychology:

> >
> > The entanglement is in terms of superposing the individual
> > superpositions.
> >
> > Two holograms can be placed on top of each other an you
> > will see a composite of both pictures, but they do not
> > seem to interfere with each other much unless the
> > phases are very close;
> I feel this feature is an evidence that your "entanglement" can be described by
> tensor product.

    Yes. I think it is just as do-able macroscopically as microscopically.
    There is nothing about the microscopic domain that makes it the only
    domain for "quantum" effects. "Quantum" is a very general idea.
> > The terminology you are using is starting to make sense
> > to me. This is very interesting. I wish I knew more mathematics
> > so I can follow your details as well. Sounds like you have
> > an interesting generic solution. (I'm sure you already knew that :)
> Mathematics could not play an essential role.
> Physics has been attempting to explain the problem of direction or orientation
> of time without introducing any of subjectivity. This has been the tradition in
> physics since the age of Galilei. My point is that the direction of time is a
> subjective notion. Even if one had a time machine and traveled to the past,
> his/her time would "increase" and he/she would age. During the time travel
> one sees/observes the outside, and measures things' motions by one's time and
> would observe that things follow the reverse direction of one's time. This would
> suggest that the direction of time cannot be explained by objective attitude
> with ignoring that the observation is a subjective deed. If one's time did not
> increase, one could not know that he/she lives during the travel: If one's time
> were reversed during the trip, one would forget what had happened and
> therefore did not recognize his/her own existence. My reasoning/intuition
> tells, at least to me, that there must be a subjective direction of reference
> for each observer and physics' attempts to explain the direction of time
> by mere objective reasoning are endless circular arguments.

> My claim is that the traditional "working hypothesis" of physics that things can be
> explained by paying attention merely on "objective aspects" of things
> ended its role and that the next "working hypothesis" should be that
> subjectivity plays an essential role in physics or metasciences (after
> sciences).

          I think that step will, and is, being skipped and people are
          treating the subjectivity as a wave-theory and objectivity
          as a particle-theory, and the next working hypothesis is
          to do the same thing they did with space and time, and with
          to wave and particle, to form quanta of these:


          not to treat them separately, but integrally.
> There may be an objection to this standpoint. However, as physics is a humans'
> reasoning on what they observe, someone must have the responsibility for what
> they say about their observation. That "someone" responsible for the reasoning
> is the "subjectivity."

          Definitely. The experimenter is a part of the observation at some
          times to a large extent, and at other times to a lesser extent.

          It depends on the "inner product" between the observer and the observed.

          We can define that "inner product" in terms of the superposition
          and/or entanglement of the local systems of the observed and the
          observer. Have you already worked something like this out
          mathematically ?



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