[time 121] RE: [time 115] On Pratt's Duality [time 81] Entropy, wholeness, dialogue, algebras

Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Sun, 4 Apr 1999 01:34:45 +0900

Dear Stephen,

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com>
To: Time List <time@kitada.com>
Date: Sunday, April 04, 1999 12:33 AM
Subject: [time 115] On Pratt's Duality [time 81] Entropy, wholeness, dialogue,

>Hi All,
> A brief note. The duality that Pratt speaks to can is exeplified by the
>duality between the set of vectors in a tangent space and its cotangent
>space of linear functionals. Each of these can be seen as a 4-space. It
>could be that octonions are involved, but I do not know the details. But
>I do notice that this looks like Matti's thoughts:
>> "One one results on my side was the realization that 8-dimensional
>> imbedding space H of TGD allows octonionic structures as tangent space
>> structure: one could say that H is locally a number field. Future
>> lightcone of Minkowski space allows very natural quaternion structure.
>> This was a surprise for me since I had used to think quaternions are
>> as inherently Euclidian space: one can however define also Minkowksi
>> metric: inner product is defined as the real part of xy instead of
>> real part of x^*y."
>> "In TGD framework cognitive spacetime sheets, which are nearly vacuum and
>> have finite time duration. [Energy and other conserved quantities flow
>> from material spacetime sheets to cognitive sheets when they are formed
>> and back to material spacetime sheets when cognitive spacetime sheets
>> disappear.] The entanglement of cognitive spacetime sheets, 'Mind' with
>> spacetime sheets carrying matter, 'Matter' is reduced in allowed quantum
>> jumps."
> I am interested in how we pair-wise partition the Universe into, to use
>MAtti's terms, material and cognitive spacetimes. I think the former are
>modeled by Pratt's Body and the latter by Mind. There is an optimization
>involved that looks like Matti's ideas, but I am missing the details of
>its mechanism. Is it like a step-wise adaptation or a converging
>tournament of games or a darwinian group selection, or all of the above?

I think here you miss the subjectivity. Who does play the tournament games?
Who does decide the darwinian group selection? Or Who does divide the universe
into material and cognitive spacetimes. Or whose body and mind are you
discussing? Who does make the step-wise adaptation? I think there is no model
valid without specifying for whom/which the model is.

>:) Could the act of communication be represented by "wormholes"? How do
>we quantitate the information flow allows by wormholes?


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