Stephen P. King (email@example.com)
Sun, 04 Apr 1999 13:09:58 -0400
Ben Goertzel wrote:
> >> 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.
You have a very sympathetic audience with me!
> 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.
Yes, this is what we assume ab initio, Existence *and* Nothingness
> 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
Yes! But just like local miminal solutions in the computation of the
Traveling Saleman Problem, Nature does not have instant access to the
totality. There are NO oracles! Local cosmoses are such local minima.
Paths in them are local extrema. BTW, the min/max aspect of fuzzy
subsethood is a reflection of this. I need your critique. I do not wish
to get into polemics like Kosko does. I only ask: What works best for
the problem at hand...?
> > 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
I'm working on it... :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:51 JST