**Ben Goertzel** (*ben@goertzel.org*)

*Mon, 29 Mar 1999 19:16:32 -0500*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**ca314159: "[time 70] Re: Geometric transformations & DSP"**Previous message:**ca314159: "[time 68] Re: [time 66] Geometric transformations & DSP"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 67] Re: [time 66] Geometric transformations & DSP"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 72] RE: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"

At 12:29 PM 3/29/99 -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:

*>Hi Ben,
*

*>
*

*> I recommend you read Hitoshi's papers. :) This is the "philosophical"
*

*>one.
*

*>
*

*>http://www.kitada.com/time_III.html
*

yes, I read this before, but it does not explain why R^6 instead of R^4

This is explained in another of his papers which I have not gotten through yet

Returning to

*>> >1) How the quantity of time (past, future, "history") as it is
*

*>> >considered "classically" by observers is derived from the interactions
*

*>> >of LSs, which give us local clocks.
*

this is indeed tricky, but seems to me to NOT be equivalent, as you suggest, to

the problem of projecting R^6 to R^4, which is a quantum-mechanics-internal

problem, standard Kaluza-klein type stuff, and much less difficult IMO.

There seems to me to be a freaky ontological problem with the idea that

centers of

mass live in finite-dimensional Riemannian space whereas the particles that

are averaged to yield these

centers of mass live in Hilbert space.

Hitoshi, your "philosophical" paper does not really address this

philosophical issue.

I'm not interested in philosophical verbiage so much as in the logic of

this relationship.

Quantum logic encapsulates the structure of quantum theory in an abstract

way; is there

a similar abstract conceptual formalism that captures this reduction?

Logicians have formulated

numerous "temporal logics." I would like to see a consistent "temporal

logic" involving these

two time scales....

How do we decide when we have a system with a center of mass. to be treated

general-relativistically and not

just a multiparticle quantum system? Is the center of mass of 2 particles

a GR particle?

3 particles? 9372? Obviously there is no magic number. But what then?

do we have to view

the GR perspective as fuzzy, as having more and more plausibility as there

are more and more

particles in the system, and as their mean becomes more and more stable (in

a highly dynamic,

high-variance quantum system there may be no reliably detectable center of

mass over finite time

scales).

In psychological terms, a center of mass is the "exemplar" of a category,

so what Hitoshi is

proposing is that a different logic applies to categories than to

individual elements. In the mind

this corresponds roughly to the distinction between cognition to

perception. QM is being posited

as the "perceptual level" of the Universal Mind, and GR is being posited as

the cognitive level.

Consciousness I have argued serves to group perceptual features into wholes

(wholes=

categories, very roughly speaking). This has an interesting resonance with

Hitoshi's theory,

when one considers that consciousness in quantum physics is related to

making phenomena into macroscopic events. The synthetic idea here would be

that, once consciousness has grouped

some percepts (particles) into a whole, this whole is then susceptible to

the laws of wholes,

i.e. GR, rather than the laws of raw percepts, i.e. QM.

ben

**Next message:**ca314159: "[time 70] Re: Geometric transformations & DSP"**Previous message:**ca314159: "[time 68] Re: [time 66] Geometric transformations & DSP"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 67] Re: [time 66] Geometric transformations & DSP"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 72] RE: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:29:46 JST
*