Stephen Paul King (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 01 Dec 1999 15:49:30 -0500
Dear Prof. Matsuno and Folks,
The quote from Aristotle is great. It is important to see the
difference between a priori potentiality and constructive actuality. The
two different types of infinities well illustrate this! The potentiality
gives the existential possibility and the actual the local
concreteness... They complement each other...
I think that we need to figure out if the notion of space-time fall
within the perview of both!
Koichiro Matsuno wrote:
> Stephen: Thanks. I did something wrong again. Forgive me. The lower half of
> the body has just disappeared. The whole body is attached below. May it
> survive as a healthy one, this time! Koichiro.
> On Tuesday, November 30, 1999 2:27 AM, Matti Pitkanen
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> >The definitions of density matrix and associated entanglement entropy are
> >actually not at all trivial since quantum states are quantum histories . .
> >The details of subsystem concept are still not completely
> >understood. So these concepts are "timelessness" in TGD framework.
> >If the dynamics determining spacetime surfaces as absolute minima
> >of Kaehler action were strictly causal, one could by general
> > coordinate invariance define density matrix using the
> >restrictions of configuration space spinor field . . .
> Dilation (e.g., association of quantum histories with quantum states) and
> reduction (e.g., back to 3(4)-d space) are operations or processes. The
> problem set to myself is what could be the reference against which these are
> said to be operations or processes. I am not familiar with empirical or
> causal implications of the Kaehler action.
> >Could you explain what the concepts
> >'present perfect tense' and and 'present progressive' mean.
> >I hated grammatics in school time(;-) and
> >I am not at all sure whether I understand them correctly!
> My reference to what the present progressive and the present perfect look
> like is from Aristotle.
> "For every movement is incomplete - making thin, learning, walking,
> building, these are movements, and incomplete at that. For it is not true
> that at the same time a thing is walking and has walked, or is building and
> has built, or is coming to be and has come to be, or being moved and has
> been moved, but what is being moved is different from what has been moved,
> and what is moving from what has moved. But it is the same thing that at the
> same time has seen and is seeing, is thinking and has thought. The latter
> sort of process, then, I call actuality, and the former a movement."
> (Metaphysics Book IX, Chap. 6, 1048b)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Dec 28 1999 - 12:02:34 JST