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

*Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:51:47 -0500*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 80] Re: [time 77] Spacetime &consciousness"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 89] Re: [time 77] Re: [time 75] Re: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"

Hi,

*>In TGD the entropy associated with density matrix of subsystem is in
*

*>key role: strong form of Negentropy Maximization Principle states
*

*>that in a given quantum state quantum jump is performed by the subsystem
*

*>for which the negentropy gain is maximum in quantum jump reducing
*

*>entanglement entropy to zero. The 'physical' interpretation is following:
*

*>entanglement is measure for attentiveness not yet involving consciousness.
*

*>Entanglement entropy measures, not the information content of
*

*>conscious experience, but how 'catchy' the potential conscious
*

*>experience is. The most catchy consciouss experience is experience.
*

*>Mass media people would certainly agree with this!
*

I don't know what "entanglement entropy" is, sorry. What is the formula

for this? --

in the discrete case (to keep things simple)

*>The problem is to find also a measure for the information content
*

*>of conscious experience and there are quite explicit ideas also about
*

*>this. The modification of Roy Frieden's ideas to TGD context lead to
*

*>the idea that the number of degenerate absolute minima of Kahler action
*

*>going through given 3-surface X^3 (there are several of them by classical
*

*>nondeterminism) is entropy typ measure for the cognitive resources of
*

*>3-surface.
*

I don't understand this. How do we get from this mathematical measure

to "cognitive resources"??

The relation between your very interesting TGD theory and Hitoshi's very

interesting

global/local theory is not at all clear to me.

Evidently you all think there is some kind of conceptual correspondence between

them in spite of the different mathematical vocabularies.

Maybe it would be useful for you two to articulate what you think the

points of commonality

and points of difference between the two approaches are. If you have been

over this ground

before in other forums please excuse me for being so presumptuous!

I think that if we arrive at a sufficiently abstract and foundational

perspective we will be able

to see exactly where the two approaches coincide, and then where they

diverge in the process

of making additional mathematical assumptions to turn philosophy into science.

Matti, does your theory fit into the general framework of

-- one set of laws for parts

-- one set of laws for wholes

-- a bridging principle explaining how whole-laws and part-laws interrelate

??

This seems to be the philosophical structure of Hitoshi's theory...

If your theory could somehow be cast into this form this would give us a

way to proceed

in producing a "conceptual diff" of the two theories...

As I said before, I think that getting the ideas right is the key here and

that mathematical

tricks are not going to be the answer. There are too many mathematical

tricks out there,

the mathematical universe is full of elegance, but our universe only

implements a limited

assortment of the really nice things in the mathematical universe...

ben

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 80] Re: [time 77] Spacetime &consciousness"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 89] Re: [time 77] Re: [time 75] Re: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:50 JST
*