From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Aug 01 2002 - 22:13:15 MDT
Peter writes
> >[Lee Corbin wrote]
> >Amara writes
> >> 'Bayesian view of everything' by Carlton Caves
> >> http://info.phys.unm.edu/~caves/
> >
> >That's a fascinating essay, and quite readable for those with
> >some familiarity with thermodynamics and who have an interest
> >in probability theory. Until someone convinces me otherwise,
> >however, I find his claims like the one that we should regard
> >entropy as subjective, quite misleading if not downright wrong.
> >Taking his view, one would conclude either that "subjectivity"
> >was not something limited to the operations of minds, e.g.,
> >the higher animals especially humankind, ...or that the operation
>
> Subjectivity, in the sense that is appropriate to physics, does
> not require any special kind of mind.
Well, I certainly hope not!
> Caves' argument appears to require an observer that is approximately
> the same as the kind of observer that Einstein referred to when
> describing relativity.
It's possible that you understand what Caves is saying better than I.
Elaborate if you've got time. Can you defend his claim that entropy
is subjective? I am afraid (without knowing more about what he's
saying) that a whole lot will turn out to be "subjective".
> Can you rephrase your criticism of Caves' argument to clarify how your
> criticism differs from a criticism of Einstein's arguments?
We call the effects in special relativity "observer oriented" sometimes,
I guess. What is meant is that there exist different frames of
reference. I don't consider these in any way subjective, because
of actual objective events that must be considered that are frame-
invariant. For example, a cosmic ray speeding down through our
atmosphere undergoes time dilation and certain resultant particles
decay more slowly than you'd expect. The invariants of physics,
however, cause the results of calculations to predict the same
events even though made using the reference frame of the particle.
However clumsily I'm saying this, there just isn't any subjectivity
at rest in the reference frame of the particle.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:51 MST