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

*Sat, 03 Apr 1999 18:55:26 -0500*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 126] Re: [time 109] Spacetime& consciousness"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 124] Re: [time 123] RE: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"**In reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 116] RE: [time 113] RE: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 146] Re: [time 114] Re: Pratt and Consciousness"

Dear Ben,

I apologize for being a bit abrupt. I just get impatient. :)

Ben Goertzel wrote:

*> >[SPK]
*

*> > I can see your point about Pratt, but in the sum of his papers, an
*

*> >concept emerges that is paradigmic. The idea of duality is not just a
*

*> >clarification, it is a modeling tool. Ben's thoughts unfortunately do
*

*> >not go far enough, as of what I have read. I am not interested
*

*> >personally in the particular details of consciousness, e.g. perception,
*

*> >cognition, etc. at this moment. We need to merely show that
*

*> >consciousness is derivable from our model and let others work out that
*

*> >detail.
*

*>
*

*> I suspect that the details of consciousness and perception and cognition
*

*> ARE relevant to physics, in ways that we have not yet understood.
*

I do completely agree with this comment! I believe that it is because

of this relevance that the work of people such as Pratt, Svozil, Wegner

and Calude is very important.

*> Specifically, I suspect that the same "archetypal algebras" appear in both
*

*> psychology and physics,
*

*> and that this fact is not unconnected with the idea that the objective world
*

*> is the "sum" of every entity's subjective perceptions of it.
*

I would go further. :) I would say that for every possible weighted sum

of a finite set of entities's subjective perceptions (or possible

mutually consistent measurements) there exists an "objective world." The

basic fact that must be understood is no single unique sum of subjective

perceptions that can bisimulate a unique "objective" universe for all.

Bisimulational equivalence is were the computational aspects come into

play. Penrose's argument that Turing Machines are insufficient to model

conscious awareness is correct, but he did not go far enough in his

train of thought. TM's fail because they are bounded by initiality, the

same initiality (and/or finality) that is assumed in Classical physics.

With the understanding of the implications of QM's irreducible

uncertainty, we can no longer operate within the naive realism of a

"single unique and finite universe" for all possible observers. Please

read http://www.cs.brown.edu/~pw/papers/coal.pdf

The Universe is NOT _______?, with respect to any finite measure, only

in the infinite limit of increasingly accurate (or convex covers ?) sets

of possible observations can we get ______?. I do not know the proper

word to describe this property; it is defined as "binary complete" and

at universal equilibrium and Hausdorff(?), among other properties, that

relate to its Chiatin's regularity. (Robert's latest posts are

relevant!) Suffice it to say that no finite observer will ever

completely model the Universe because that would require an Eternity to

compute in terms of the model's Kolmogorov complexity. The only hope is

a never ending chain of inclusive model that model It with increasing

accuracy. This is the basic idea, IMHO, of Hitoshi's derivation of the

uncertainty principle with in LS theory.

Needless to say, we have to understand that in order to assume that

observers can have a consciousness that lasts longer than a Planck time,

we have to figure out how events are strung like beads on their

individual time [world] lines. There enters a difficulty when we try to

deal with more that two events at a time. It is well known that the

scheduling of tasks in a distributed computational system, which I am

proposing a cosmos is, more often than not we will have conflicts in the

ordering. The infamous Catch 22 is an example. Pratt's Chu space

formalism plugs right into our thinking of consciousness to solve the

perennial mind-body problem or object-subject dichotomy.

http://boole.stanford.edu/chuguide.html (the site is down right now,

Vaughan must be working on it... :)

Later,

Stephen

*> ben
*

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 126] Re: [time 109] Spacetime& consciousness"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 124] Re: [time 123] RE: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"**In reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 116] RE: [time 113] RE: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 146] Re: [time 114] Re: Pratt and Consciousness"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:51 JST
*