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

*Wed, 07 Apr 1999 09:34:39 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 199] Re: [time 198] local systems, measurement, etc."**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 197] Re: [time 196] one more addition to Re: Prugovecki's time"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 199] Re: [time 198] local systems, measurement, etc."

Hitoshi,

It made me smile to read that you suspect no one but the referee has read &

understood

your proofs. This is the lot of most technical research outside the

mainstream these days!

When I went through Tony Smith's work in detail he made the same remark.

As for my own

work, my books on the mind have been read a lot by nontechnical folks who

skip the equations.

The only way I got a bunch of AI experts to study my work closely was to

start a company

and hire them and PAY them to do it ;)

Anyway, looking over your papers a little more, I agree that there is a

remarkable harmony

between your approach to physics & my approach to consciousness. What's

ironic is

that this was not apparent to me on first reading your stuff, only on

fairly closely studying it.

There is something about the nature of scientific, mathematical language

that impedes

conceptual progress. However there is no "magic bullet" to solve this

problem -- ordinary language is

too vague and there are no other alternatives. Someday my Webmind software

system may be

able to help -- taking an article as input and finding other articles that

are "conceptually related"

even though the terminology is different. But, not yet!

Now, back to technical things.

I think I understand Theorem 2 now. Let me make a few comments, basically

rephrasings

in my own language. The mathematics seems sound, what concerns me is the

interpretation and

the extensibility to deal with weak and strong forces...

Basically you have done what you say: You have shown how QM and GR can

coexist, consistently,

in a single mathematical framework. This is

a nice achievement, however, a skeptic would say that it's just a

mathematical trick, because you

don't provide explanations of weak and strong nuclear forces, and you don't

provide any new

experimental predictions about QM/GR interactions. The counterargument to

"it's just a mathematical

trick" is the conceptual power of the interpretation.

The logic of observation and independence in your theory is interesting and

puzzling.

You say that two local systems are necessarily independent because, if

there were a dependence

between them (e.g. a correlation based on past entanglements), then in

order for this dependence to

be known, the two systems would have had to be observed interacting, in

which case they

would not be two different local systems, but two parts of the same local

system. Is that a fair

paraphrase?

I start wondering here: What if the two local systems are observed together

by some measuring

apparatus, and the results are recorded on plate X but no one looks at

them. Then the local systems are studied as if independent, using GR on

their centers of mass, because they are separate local systems.

Then plate X is observed: Do the subsequent GR results become wrong because

all of a sudden the

axiom of independence is retroactively revoked??? Is there a paradox here?

Don't the GR results

get sucked into the subjectivity and multiple possible universes of the

quantum domain?

I am also puzzling over Axiom 6. Here we have 2 local systems and one is

observing the other.

The observing system is somehow seeing the observed system ~not~ as an

object, a center of

mass, but rather as an internal subjective universe, and it is translating

the entities seen in the

observed system's internal subjective universe using relativity... (using

relativistic calculations

based on the two systems' centers of mass and their relative motions). The

question is, what

determines whether I see you as a center of mass or as an internal

subjective universe, a Euclidean

quantum space. (In philosophical terms, this reminds me of Buber's

distinction between

I-It and I-Thou interactions.)

In closing, I have a suggestion of "how to proceed from here." I think we

should try to formulate

your theory in purely logical format, as much as is possible. This would

serve several purposes

1) it would make clearer what has to be done to extend the theory to

account for weak and strong forces

2) it would make clearer the mapping between your theory and my

psychological theory of perception and consciousness

3) it would make clear why the paradoxes I mentioned above are not really

paradoxes (unless they are ;)

A first step would perhaps be for you to give a precise statement of your

axioms and theorems

in WORDS only. I started trying to do this, but figured you would be

better at it. Given this,

the second step will be to try to replace the words with the most general

mathematical/logical

constructs that make the axioms/theorems true. At worst, this effort would

result in us understanding

your theory better ;)

One more thing. I think that the Big Bang dispute is not that relevant,

because there is no reason to

believe the universe is infinite. I think the whole universe is finite.

Who says the universe doesn't

have a local time, then? And who says a system can't observe itself?

Maybe the universe observes

itself. The infinite degrees of freedom of your hypothesized Universe is

just a mathematical approximation.

The Big Bang is a product of strong nuclear forces I believe (?), and this

issue needs to be revisited once

it is clear how your approach accounts for the strong force.

ben

**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 199] Re: [time 198] local systems, measurement, etc."**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 197] Re: [time 196] one more addition to Re: Prugovecki's time"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 199] Re: [time 198] local systems, measurement, etc."

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