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

*Sun, 04 Apr 1999 12:50:03 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 147] Re: [time 81] Discreteness and p-adics"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 145] Re: [time 142] Spacetime &consciousness"**In reply to:**ca314159: "[time 123] RE: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"

*>> 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.
*

Here is my take on it. This stuff is hard to articulate -- it's a mix of

metaphor and

mathematics -- and I wouldn't even try if this weren't a sympathetic audience.

Just as in QT a particle takes all possible paths ... as you say, all possible

combinations of subjective realities "exist" in some sense as virtual or

potential

"objective realities." This is what we might call the quantum view of

intersubjective

reality.

However, just as in the classical view a particle takes one path ... in the

classical

view there is one objective reality that emerges from the myriad possible

summations

of subjective realities. I.e., most of the potential objective realities

cancel each other

out through destructive interference, and the one that survives is the one

that was a

"local extremum" of the appropriate energy function (what is the right

energy function

for realities I'm not sure ;), and so triumphed through constructive

interfence.

*> Pratt's Chu space
*

*>formalism plugs right into our thinking of consciousness to solve the
*

*>perennial mind-body problem or object-subject dichotomy.
*

Chu spaces are nice mathematics, I will have more to say about them later,

but they are very abstract and don't tell us how to deal with the specific

algebras

that underly the physical world. Ideas on how to build this bridge would be

appreciated.

ben

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 147] Re: [time 81] Discreteness and p-adics"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 145] Re: [time 142] Spacetime &consciousness"**In reply to:**ca314159: "[time 123] RE: [time 69] Spacetime & consciousness"

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