Hitoshi Kitada (hitoshi@kitada.com)
Fri, 21 May 1999 10:17:15 +0900
Dear Matti and Stephen,
I reconsider about Frieden. In spite of his emphasis on information, what he
is doing is just constructing an action and minimizing it. In this sense,
his theory is physics. In getting the action, he considers the information
that observer gets from nature, which gives a new flavor. The essence is the
same as the orthodox physics, but the informational look to nature gave him
new words and interpretation. What I have written might sound critique, but
the fact is that it was necessary some more days to understand his spirit. I
actually felt betrayed by the discontinuity in his argument in page 64. But
if he started with his axioms 1 - 3 in pp.70-72, I could agree with his way
of approach and I admit his method gives a new way of finding the form of
action.
----- Original Message -----
From: Matti Pitkanen <matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi>
To: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com>
Cc: <time@kitada.com>
Sent: Friday, May 21, 1999 1:03 AM
Subject: [time 336] Re: [time 333] Re: [time 332] Re: Big Picture
>
>
> On Thu, 20 May 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> > Dear Matti,
> >
> > Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 20 May 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Hitoshi,
> > > >
> > > > Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Stephen,
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com>
> > > > > To: Hitoshi Kitada <hitoshi@kitada.com>
> > > > > Cc: Time List <time@kitada.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 12:42 AM
> > > > > Subject: [time 328] Re: [time 326] Re: Fisher information and
relativity
> > > > snip
> > > >
> > > > > Frieden thinks the observational aspect only. Thus space-time is
given for
> > > > > him. Maybe in this sense, my notion or defintion of time is not
necessary
> > > > > for his consideration. It is sufficient that some parameter
corresponding to
> > > > > time is given for him.
> > > >
> > > > But is not the main point of your LS theory? I understand that
Frieden
> > > > is assuming an a priori space-time to frame his thoughts. We must
think
> > > > of his notions as applying to the "mechanisms of observation" of LSs
and
> > > > as such should use a line of thought similar to your explanation of
the
> > > > Hubble expansion.
> > > > Most people do not understand your theory! It is very hard to
accept
> > > > that their is no absolute clock (or unique space-time frame!) for
all
> > > > possible observers! People instinctively wish for an absolute
ordering,
> > > > duration and length measure to the world for that would allow them
to
> > > > affirm that their particular way of thinking is the only correct one
and
> > > > every one else is wrong. This violates the spirit of relativity.
"Any
> > > > observer perceives their own subuniverse to be Minkowskian in
itself."
> > > > (my notion)
> > > > I say that Einstein did not go far enough, he should of
banished the
> > > > notion of a Unique space-time for all observers all together. We
need to
> > > > discuss this further! We need to rethink everything starting with
the
> > > > notion of causality!
> > >
> > > I agree with the idea that there is no unique spacetime but quantum
> > > superposition of spacetimes. But I think that also the hypothesis
> > > about observer is too strong and leads to philosophical problems.
> > > Just conscious observations are needed, I think.
> >
> > I agree, but I am thinking of the nature of these space-times that are
> > superposed. Are they a priori definite or are they even categorizable as
> > space-times? Could you explain your take on the philosophical problems
> > implied by my hypothesis? I am very happy for a critique on this notion!
> > :)
>
> Actually I am speaking about spacetime surfaces in my own approach.
> Absolute minima of Kaehler action. Imbeddability as
> smooth surface to M^4_+xCP_2 should make everything rather well defined.
> I might equally well speak about 3-surfaces
> with sufficiently general definition of 3-surface since minimization of
> Kahler action associates to 3-surface spacetime surface.
> By nondeterminism of Kaehler action, this means allowance of unions of
> spacelike 3-surfaces with time like separations, and this brings in
> 'thoughts' interpreted as surfaces of this kind: multisnapshots of
> classical time development.
>
> About your hypothesis. Basic problem is that observer with free will is
> inconsistent with the determinism of physics. Speaking about observers
> means dualism. The basic problems and paradoxes of various are dualisms
> discussed by Chalmers in his book: Chalmers was a believer of interactive
> dualism but quite convincingly showed that it does not work.
> Hard problem is one of the problems: if contents
> of consciousness are determined by 'function' of the system, that is
> by the dynamical development of system, it is very difficult to see
> how free will could fit into the picture.
>
> If one wants to describe observer in manner consistent with physical laws
> one ends up with identification of consciousness as a property of physical
> state or as a process and this in turn leads to conclusion that
> consciousness is epiphenomenon, no free will. This of course assuming that
> physics is deterministic. Quantum nondeterminism does not help since
> the concept of observer is equally problematic in
> standard quantum physics context, to say nothing about quantum
> nondeterminism itself. My impression is that talking about observer
> involves assuming too much.
>
>
>
> >
> > > Various observations given very limited information about
> > > reality which itself changes in every moment of consciousness. Could
> > > this be sufficiently general to be free of internal contradictions?
> >
> > Yes, each observation involves only finite amounts of information and
> > the content changes in every moment of conscious! How this changes and
> > what are the trade-offs is important. The statement "consistency implies
> > existence" is a two edged sword! We must understand that given finite
> > information only a lower bound can be placed on the internal consistensy
> > of observables. Reality, for me, is the Totality and it is, as a whole,
> > unknowable, e.g. it is impossible to map an infinite set onto a finite
> > set in a unique manner. Or am I wrong on that? :)
> >
> You are quite right. Fortunately, it seems that moments of consciousness
> somehow manage to give very deep and abstract information
> about Totality: our ability to form abstractions and experience
> logical consistency is something remarkable. I really believe that
> basic property of consciousness is formation of abstractions:
> we cannot solve a simplest differential equation numerically in our head
> but we can play with infinite-dimensional geometries.
>
>
>
> > > > snip
> > > > > > I believe that Frieden's work is but another piece of the puzzle
of
> > > > > > Quantum gravity, I do not expect his work to completely exhaust
the work
> > > > > > needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree. But my problem is what the complete understanding is.
> > > >
> > > > I do not think that "complete understanding" is possible, only
> > > > asymptotically increasing understanding. Since any observation is
> > > > restricted to a finite number of parameters, "knowledge" of the
totality
> > > > is impossible!
> > > >
> > > Agree also with this.
> > >
> > > > > I need only to point at the work that went into QM to illustrate
> > > > > > this! We need to see the big picture!
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is we cannot have the picture. We have many pieces,
but do not
> > > > > have any synthetic picture. This seems to be the case at any age,
as we see
> > > > > when reminding the history.
> > > >
> > > > We must understand how it is that LSs can communicate at all!
> > > >
> > > > We start by understanding that each observer has its own
infinite
> > > > subuniverse of potentially observable events, but can only
communicate
> > > > with other observers to the degree that it shares information with
them.
> > >
> > > Criticizing again the idea of observer (without denying that it is
> > > certainly very useful approximate concept at practical level).
> > > Couldn't communication be basically an observation in which
communicators
> > > form larger unit of consciousness?
> >
> > Yes! :) Communication acts are mappings from one space-time to another,
> > if we follow Edelman's line of thinking in "Bright Air, Brilliant Fire"
> > so your notion are accurate. I am trying to understand consciousness as
> > a quantum-like action and can be composed to for different sized units.
> > The information content can vary within the uncertainty trade-offs so it
> > is not an atom in the classical sense. The closest I have seen this idea
> > discussed is in Pratt's papers. I wil try to write up this more.
> > The key understanding needed is that observations involve computation
> > of the involved minima. Such are not "free"! The computation of the
> > Lagrangian of a system has a price tag in free energy available to an
> > observer. When we think about the computations involve in the traveling
> > saleman problem we see clear example of this notion.
> >
> I love to disagree! Do conscious observations really involve
> computation? I tend to believe that something much much simpler is in
> question (no need to say, quantum jump, the miracle!). Thoughts as
> associations or sensory experiences. . 2+2=4 as learned association of
> symbols rather than computation. Somehow I feel that computationalism
> is modern version of the clockwork models of mind based on gears and
> springs.
Matti, may I ask about the notion of consciousness of yours. If I am not
mistaken, I remember you have ever referred to "consciousness" in the
context of your TGD theory. In that how mind or consciousness is understood?
Is it not another way of expressing mind as consisting of gears and springs
with these words replaced by some other more implicit words, if it could
describe the mind and consciusness as _parts of nature_?
>
> MP
>
>
>
>
Best wishes,
Hitoshi
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:10:32 JST