[time 1106] Re: [time 1104] Re: [time 1103] intensities

Koichiro Matsuno (kmatsuno@vos.nagaokaut.ac.jp)
Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:16:31 +0900

Dear Stephen and All,

   Stephen Paul King <stephenk1@home.com> wrote:

>> The capacity of doing measurement on the part of any material body,
>> is, internal measurement precedes an implementation of interaction,
>> 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!

    This seems to be the matter of descriptive stance we take. If we address
the record registered in the present perfect tense in the present tense,
this will be made in the present tense to ourselves external to the record.
As far as the externalist present tense is concerned, I can see the working
of a duality between a measurement and an interaction. The externalist
present tense is an ontological commitment to a being (e.g., a time
capsule). On the other hand, if we address the moving inconsistencies
driving the present progressive in the present tense, this will be made in
the present tense to ourselves internal to the migrating inconsistencies.
The internalist present tense is an ontological commitment to migrating
inconsistencies, or you might say, durations, which Heidegger may have
called beings-in-the-world that remain mortal.

   Just for the sake of a clarification, imagine the relationship between
our Milky Way and the Andromeda nebula, roughly 2 million light years apart.
If the time scale we take is far greater than 2M light years, their mutual
measurement and interaction may be called duals. On the other hand, if the
time scale is far less than 2M, the unique association between internal
measurement by each and inter-action between the two could hardly be
conceived. To say the least, internal measurement by each can be conceivable
even if we are not sure about what the associated inter-action may look

   Again, the issue must be on the artifacts intrinsic to our linguistic
practice. Once we give a name to anything we want (e.g., Milky Way,
Andromeda), we think that it is possible to talk about these things thus
named from the viewpoint of nowhere. This is the externalist stance, and the
resulting statement is made in the externalist present tense. This practice
is truly irresistible and inevitable. What is focused is an ontological
commitment, instead of an epistemological perception. The internalist stance
upon the internalist present tense is another ontological commitment. These
two commitments are incommensurable. Nonetheless, trespassing from one to
the other also seems quite irresistible, though the orthodox physicist tries
hard to resist such a temptation. What I would like to hope to myself is to
know my trespassing when I did that. It's extremely tough, indeed.


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