Ben Goertzel (email@example.com)
Sun, 04 Apr 1999 12:50:03 -0400
>> 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
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
"objective realities." This is what we might call the quantum view of
However, just as in the classical view a particle takes one path ... in the
view there is one objective reality that emerges from the myriad possible
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
for realities I'm not sure ;), and so triumphed through constructive
> 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
that underly the physical world. Ideas on how to build this bridge would be
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:51 JST