[time 1104] Re: [time 1103] intensities

Stephen Paul King (stephenk1@home.com)
Thu, 09 Dec 1999 13:41:00 -0500

Dear Koichiro and Friends,

Koichiro Matsuno wrote:
> Dear Hitoshi and All,
> On 8 Dec 1999, Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@kitada.com> wrote:
> >My stance is that clocking is not restricted to "speaking animals" nor to
> >living things we perceive so usually.
> You are right. What I meant was that as far as the present progressive
> mode is concerned, everybody is on a par whether it is a quark, an atom, a
> bacterium, a cat on the street or a human being. All of the other
> grammatical tenses including the present perfect and the present tense are
> derivatives, that is, artifacts from the present progressive. I don't think
> I did disservice to those folks since they live in their present progressive
> mode as we do. We also feel confident in referring to clocking on their part
> with recourse to the linguistic artifacts uniquely human.

        I agree, we use our languages in an attempt to communicate about
experiences, but the words are not the experiences themselves they are
only an attempt to represent such...
> >My thought is seen in Lance's [time 734] entitled
> >"Time as philosophical problem (re [time 724])":
> > Here is what we wrote:
> >> It follows from this that to be an existing
> >> thing in the world necessarily involves clocking, without
> >> which there is no interaction.
> The capacity of doing measurement on the part of any material body, that
> is, internal measurement precedes an implementation of interaction, rather
> than the other way around.

        Could it be possible that "internal measurement" and "interaction" are
duals, e.g. the action of an internal measurement is the mathematical
dual (like the Poyntriagin ? duality) of the act of an interaction? This
would make the question of priorness mute! This is also why I am
advancing the idea that interactions between physical systems are dual
to bisimulations between computation/information systems!
> >Contrary to
> > the conventional understanding, our view is that all beings
> > are engaged in measuring and observing, and the activities
> > of measuring and observing are not incidental, but
> > pertain to the essence of all interactions.
> I am quite happy with this. Local systems and internal measurement serve
> as a manifesto insisting on the priority of the present progressive mode in
> our linguistic practice.


> >In the point that we do not communicate with things other
> >than humans usually, your restriction with a reservation
> >"Rather, I should say" may be correct. And I see some ideas
> >common to ours seeing your statement referred to by Stephen
> >in [time 1005]:
> >> At the least, time is upon the relational activity between a
> >>clock of whatever sort and another agency which reads it
> >>as such.
> >I feel however a stress on humans' linguistic activities might
> >limit our sight.
> You have certainly read between the lines. Although I am not a
> rhetorician, I said that because I wanted we human beings should assume the
> responsibility of making such statement. I didn't want to offend those
> folks other than we human beings. The point is that we can refer to their
> agencies even with use of our linguistic artifacts.

> >I think life is not the one usually conceived in our traditional
> >but vague thought. It might have a characterization that is
> >available in the context of local systems.
> Me, too. The upcoming next agenda must be how to implement this idea in a
> more powerful manner.
> Cheers,
> Koichiro

        I am looking forward to this! :-)

Kindest regards,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Dec 28 1999 - 12:06:25 JST