Hitoshi Kitada (email@example.com)
Wed, 31 Mar 1999 02:41:25 +0900
Your recognition of my idea seems exact. Or you look like having the same
feeling or recognition of the problems as mine.
From: Ben Goertzel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Stephen P. King <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 9:25 AM
Subject: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness
>At 12:29 PM 3/29/99 -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
>> I recommend you read Hitoshi's papers. :) This is the "philosophical"
>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
>>> >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,
>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.
Yes, it can be seen as one of the standard Kaluza-Klein arguments. My point
that R^6 is more fundamental than R^4 is in that space and momentum are more
fundamental than space and time in the point that space configurations
x=(x_1,x_2,x_3) and momenta p=(p_1,p_2,p_3) are the basic quantities, from
which one can define time t of the system of particles as a kind of quotients:
t ~ |x| / |p|
where |x|, |p| are "approximate" absolute values of quantum mechanical
quantities x, p, "approximate" being understood as a kind of average of
quantum mechanical obscure values. Here is a kind of contraction procedure of
R^6 to R^4 by some compactification of a small region into a point, in the
expectation that the region would be quite small compared to the classically
recognizable region. (In some of my papers, I described this "smallness" as an
uncertainty of time.)
>There seems to me to be a freaky ontological problem with the idea that
>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
>I'm not interested in philosophical verbiage so much as in the logic of
I am too. Just I could not find a proper logical structure that suits the
situation which I want to describe.
>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.
There is no restriction to the number. Any system of a finite number of
particles can be a GR particle, even a galaxy, or a cluster of galaxies are GR
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
You show in the following descriptions that you understand this point well.
>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
>categories, very roughly speaking). This has an interesting resonance with
>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.
As Stephen writes in [time 71] a few minutes ago, we are very close each
other, or we express the same idea just in slightly different words.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:29:46 JST