Stephen Paul King (email@example.com)
Tue, 30 Nov 1999 16:59:42 -0500
Dear Prof. Matsuno,
All is well now. :-)
Koichiro Matsuno wrote:
> Since I did the key handling incorrectly, Stephen's reply to my [time
> 1063] was sent only to me. The following is what Stephen said. At the very
> end, I shall add my stuff.
> Just a small remark on Ilya Prigogine's. I have read some of his previous
> papers and those by his colleagues. With regard to the specific issue of
> whether or not time is taken to be synchronous, I have failed in finding his
> explicit reference to the asynchronicity of time. His microscopic
> irreversibility is derived from a particular choice of initial conditions.
> The underlying dynamics is mechanics, and the intensity driving it in an
> irreversible manner is exclusively from the boundary conditions. Once the
> intensity was fixed, it has been kept invariant since then. The invariance
> of the once fixed intensity is completely consonant with the synchronicity
> of time which the underlying mechanistic equation of motion necessarily
> assumes even if an irreversible outcome is squeezed out.
Yes, I can understand that much better now! Umm, could we not work with
the idea of finite and "persistent" synchronizations, like that found to
exist between chaotic systems, to avoid the problem of assuming
universal and fixed synchronization?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Dec 28 1999 - 12:02:34 JST