**Hitoshi Kitada** (*hitoshi@kitada.com*)

*Wed, 31 Mar 1999 02:41:25 +0900*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 73] Re: [time 71] Re: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 71] Re: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 67] Re: [time 66] Geometric transformations & DSP"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 76] Re: [time 72] RE: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"

Dear Ben,

Your recognition of my idea seems exact. Or you look like having the same

feeling or recognition of the problems as mine.

-----Original Message-----

From: Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org>

To: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com>

Cc: time@kitada.com <time@kitada.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:
*

*>>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.
*

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
*

*>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.
*

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

particles.

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).
*

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
*

*>(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
*

*>
*

*>
*

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.

Best wishes,

Hitoshi

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 73] Re: [time 71] Re: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 71] Re: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 67] Re: [time 66] Geometric transformations & DSP"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 76] Re: [time 72] RE: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"

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