**Stephen P. King** (*stephenk1@home.com*)

*Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:40:50 -0500*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 89] Re: [time 77] Re: [time 75] Re: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 87] Re: [time 83] Re: [time 81] Entropy, wholeness, dialogue,algebras"

Hi Ben,

Ben Goertzel wrote:

*>
*

*> hi,
*

*>
*

*> First, since Tony took his Web page down, I posted our joint paper on the
*

*> discrete version of his physics model on my site, at
*

*>
*

*> http://goertzel.org/ben/quarks/sets2quarks1.html
*

*>
*

*> Peruse it at your leisure. Note, I do not personally think this theory is
*

*> correct, it is my discrete twist on Tony's theory, but I do think it has elements of truth to it which
*

*> should not be ignored.
*

I will be taking a look. :)

*> > I just got of the phone with my friend Paul Hanna. He confirmed the
*

*> >octonionic-relativity connection. We are will be working out the details
*

*> >and I hope to post it here ASAP. He is not on-line... :)
*

*>
*

*> An octonion-GR connection would be interesting
*

*>
*

*> I am aware of many octonion-standard model connections, but not a connection
*

*> directly with GR. However this is not my speciality so there may well be
*

*> an important one that I have overlooked!
*

Well, its not GR, what we have is a generalization of SR (no curvature)

over octonionic spinors, if I understood Paul right. It deals with the

R^6 -> R^4 question.

*> > Have you read Wheeler's papers on "It from Bit"?
*

*>
*

*> yes of course. Philosophically very inspirational. And in the right spirit of
*

*> simplicity. But falling very far short of actually saying anything
*

*> concrete that you could use to calculate something ;)
*

Yeah, I know, but as a philosopher I like it! :) But we do NEED

concreteness! ;)

*> >> Suppose we view the Standard Model as tony smith wanted to, as a discrete
*

*> >> 8-D lattice
*

*> >> This lattice isn't ~quite~ derivable from abstract algebra, because
*

*> >> algebra just gives you a graph, not a graph with weighted links. I.e.,
*

*> >the algebra does not give
*

*> >> you the metric structure.
*

*> >
*

*> > Do we look at this quantum mechanically by thinking of an ensemble of
*

*> >graphs, one for each possible way that the nodes can be connected?
*

*>
*

*> I think there is one graph, and that when you compute the amplitude for a
*

*> particle to get from A to B in the graph, you assume it takes all possible paths
*

Hitoshi has some "issues" about this! I am sure that we will discuss

this at lenght.

*> But, this gets to the crux of the matter of local versus global perspectives
*

*>
*

*> In the local perspective, you compute amplitudes
*

*>
*

*> In the global perspective, you compute probabilities
*

*>
*

*> Why this switch? Why local=amplitude, global=probability?
*

Maybe the restriction of observations between LSs to discrete finite

quantities "causes" this dichotomy. We could say that amplituded

represent local "actualities" while probabilities represent global

possibilities. This is implicit in the LS theory, since we assume no

unique connection (metric, scale, gauge, etc.) to exist a priori between

LSs, thus at a global totality level all we can talk about is the

probability of properties. At the local interaction level, between LS

"centers of mass" we get a situation that looks like a superselection

rule. Man, I wish I knew how to but this mathematically! :(

*> >> But, what is it that GR talks about? Precisely this metric structure, and
*

*> >> how the massive elements in space affect it.
*

*> >
*

*> > Don't we need to consider how "this metric" is constructed by Nature?
*

*>
*

*> Yes. if we want to see it as evolving, however, the key question is not
*

*> the methods of mutation/selection but the fitness function. Where does the fitness
*

*> function come from?
*

*> Ultimately we want the fitness function to be Occam's Razor -- i.e. the
*

*> universe evolved as it did because this is the simplest way, the way that packs in the most
*

*> pattern per bit.
*

I agree, but I would add the caveat that fitness is contextual, like

how an environmental niche selects fitness in organisms. "Most pattern

per bit" or "most compressable" coding?

*> >> Perhaps we can view the two perspectives on the cosmos as follows:
*

*> >>
*

*> >> 1) the local perspective sees the links in the universe graph as having
*

*> >> certain "standard" weights
*

*> >>
*

*> >> 2) the global perspective sees the feedback between the weights on the
*

*> >> links and the entities (particles) living at the nodes of the graph
*

*> >>
*

*> >> This is a half-baked idea obviously, but ... ;)
*

*> >
*

*> > It tastes good to me! :) Could we think of this "feedback" as part of a
*

*> >computational process that is "approximating" "absolute values of
*

*> >quantum mechanical quantities x, p, "approximate" being understood as a
*

*> >kind of average of quantum mechanical obscure values.
*

*>
*

*> Maybe. I don't know. will think about it.
*

*>
*

*> > 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." Hitoshi's post
*

*> >[time 72] ?
*

*>
*

*> The contraction procedure in my view is not related to the movement from local
*

*> to global perspectives. The contraction procedure in the tony smith 8-dim
*

*> view has to do with viewing 4 dimensions as internal symmetry space and 4 as external
*

*> space.
*

*> There is a nice symmetry between inner and outer. Hitoshi's collapse from
*

*> 6 to 4 I have not thought about much yet.
*

I think we all need to look at this more closely. :)

*> >> GR basically says that space is curved more near a massive object. This
*

*> >> means that mass is defined as that which makes weights smaller (makes a
*

*> >> single link correspond to a smaller distance).
*

*> >
*

*> > This would connect easily to Hitoshi's explanation of time (and space!)
*

*> >uncertainty.
*

*>
*

*> Hmmm. I don't yet see it. Any thoughts on this Hitoshi?
*

*>
*

*> ben
*

Later,

Stephen

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 89] Re: [time 77] Re: [time 75] Re: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 87] Re: [time 83] Re: [time 81] Entropy, wholeness, dialogue,algebras"

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