**Matti Pitkanen** (*matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi*)

*Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:33:37 +0300 (EET DST)*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 254] Re: [time 253] Peter Wegner's paper"**Previous message:**Peter Wegner: "[time 252] Re: [time 251] Peter Wegner's paper"**Maybe in reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 251] Peter Wegner's paper"**Next in thread:**Stephen P. King: "[time 254] Re: [time 253] Peter Wegner's paper"

On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Hitoshi Kitada wrote:

*> Dear Stephen, Peter and Friends,
*

*>
*

*> > [SPK]
*

*> > > > I am trying to think of this in terms of Peter's
*

*> > > > Interactive Machine paradigm. If we could show that a LS is equivalent
*

*> > > > to a finite IM, we could easily bring in the power of Peter's analysis
*

*> > > > in to play. :) http://www.cs.brown.edu/~pw/papers/bcj1.pdf
*

*> > [HK]
*

*> > > I downloaded the paper, but I could not find time to see it.
*

*> >
*

*> > I will try hard to be patient. :)
*

*>
*

*> I have read Peter's paper bcj1.pdf. :)
*

*>
*

*> It is an impressive paper in the point that it seems to describe one turning
*

*> point of science.
*

I read also Peter's paper for some time ago. I found also the idea of

coinduction very deep. I see the job of theoretical physicist mostly as

coinduction in practice. There is guess for action principle, quite too

complicated to be solved exactly (of course, even this does not help much

in practice) and one tries to gradually understand what all is about.

I would rather call this all pattern recognition, discovery of mutually

consistent hypothesis consistent with the master equations.

Or course, reductionism prevails in the sense that most colleagues

believe that all physics is understood below intermediate boson mass

scale or even Planck mass. I see this as a fatal belief and

only due the interpolation of local physics to all length scales.

There is long list of anomalies (neutrino physics

being the most productive branch of physics in this respect) but

people stubbornly refuse to consider the possibility that reductionism

would fail. This is just what manysheeted spacetime concept predicts:

there is infinite hierarchy of p-adic physics labelled by prime, the

larger the prime, the larger the length scale. Each p brings in something

new not reducible to previous levels.

Consinstency implies existence philosophy I found also especially close

to my personal belief system. Most physicists would presumably represent

objections here. If mere mathematical existence seems to be to etheric for

physicist and clearly the physical world seems to be rather unique.

I would however go even further: 'Consistency implies physical

existence=mathematical existence' hypothesis. Already in string

models internal consistency requirements, in particular, cancellation

of infinities, lead to highly unique theory. In TGD same occurs:

now infinite-dimensional Kahler geometry endowed with spinor structure

requires metric to have infinite-dimensional isometry group

and seems to fix metric highly uniquely (configuration space of

3-surfaces is union of infinite-dimensional symmetric spaces). And most

importantly, also the imbedding space itself is unique with very general

assumptions.

All this sums up to what might be called quantum platonism: physical

states/quantum histories/ideas are the objective

realities and quantum jumps between them represent moments of

consciousness giving (very limited) information about these ideas.

We learn by living. LOGOS=COSMOS/PHYSICS=MATHEMATICS identification would

solve the basic counterarguments against Platonism represented by

intuitionists (we learn mathematical skills in very mundane manner; no big

revelations of mathematical truths in their full deepness).

One could perhaps also understand our unability to make only discrete

mathematics as a signature of our level of consciousness: perhaps

some day new Homo Mathematicus will be born(;-) or perhaps it exists

at the level of collective consciousness and uses us as

intelligent printers(;-).

I had some problems with technicalities: what concepts likes co-algebra

and signature meant (in practice) and did algebra have anything to do with

rather restricted idea of physicist about it or was it defined only as a

collection of symbols and symbol manipulation reules. This is of course

due to my poor mathematical education.

Matti Pitkanen

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 254] Re: [time 253] Peter Wegner's paper"**Previous message:**Peter Wegner: "[time 252] Re: [time 251] Peter Wegner's paper"**Maybe in reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 251] Peter Wegner's paper"**Next in thread:**Stephen P. King: "[time 254] Re: [time 253] Peter Wegner's paper"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:52 JST
*