**Stephen P. King** (*stephenk1@home.com*)

*Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:57:04 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 408] Re: [time 399] On the Problem of Information Flow between LSs"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 406] Dissipation and quantum jumps between quantum histories"

Dear Matti,

:) I could say: "Ah, you are discovering what I have also discovered

about consciousness!" :) I apologize for the slowness in my replies to

your very thought provoking posts. I have been reading many papers and

books in an attempt to broaden my vocabulary so that I can communicate

more effectively with you and the others on the Time List. I have also

had a bit of "writer's block" and have been taking care of my new baby.

About dissipation and consciousness: I believe that the two processes

are the reverse of each other! This notion is inspired by Roger

Penrose's argument in The Emperor's New Mind were he shows that the

annihilation of information by black holes is balanced by the creation

of "flow lines" in a phase space container representing the entire

universe.

When I found Vaughan Pratt's paper (ratmech.ps) discussing a duality

between time and logic I was convinced that the idea was correct, but I

have been unable to communicate this idea to others. Even Pratt himself

does not understand me. :( He has not worked out the way to formulate

entropy within his notion.

Your idea of the pinary cutoff is wonderful! It goes along way in

explaining why any observer has a "field of perception" that appears to

be "complete" to them. I have long argued that each observer has their

own finite universe but have not been understood. :( Matti, my friend,

you are explaining what I can not. I thank you.

I highly recommend Michael C. Mackey's book Time Arrows. If you can't

get it from the library let me know any I will send you copies of the

relevant parts. His "God Theorem" is very important for your ideas

relating dissipation to consciousness. It proves that an invertible

system U can have subsystems U_i that are not invertible and are thus

dissipative and irreversible. The way that mapping between the Real

valued states and p-adic valued states occurs is indicative. I do not

know how to represent this mathematically....

The irreversibility of quantum jumps as an action of collapsing the

many possibilities down to one actuality is in a fundamental way the

reverse of a dissipation (like the thermodynamic evolution of a system's

phase space) that maps one flow to many. Perhaps "flow" is the wrong

word... The key is that we have dual semigroups of dynamics, one

semigroup representing the evolution of consciousness and the other the

evolution of dissipation. Both involve a "time" but they "flow in

opposite directions".

The unity of the two is realized at the Grundlagen level of the

Totality, which is one. It has no dynamics in itself as seen by the fact

that it has no time associated. Mackey's proof that invertible systems

have no time (he does not say this exactly but it is implied) while

non-invertible systems will have time.

I will try to write up something about this soon. I am currently

thinking about how to best describe how subsets of U^T have non-zero

potentials with respect to each other and how this relates to the two

semigroups discussed above and how your ideas explain this. BTW,

Prigogine has the math of the semigroups already worked out!

Onward to the Unknown,

Stephen

Matti Pitkanen wrote:

*>
*

*> Dear Stephen,
*

*>
*

*> Below is qmind message summarizing the recent situation in problem of
*

*> defining measures for information content of conscious experience. There
*

*> is also a new chapter in TGD inspired theory of consciousness.
*

*>
*

*> By the way, quantum jump is jump to a state with vanishing entanglement.
*

*> In earlier posting You proposed that entanglement could perhaps vanish
*

*> only to some accuracy epsilon. I disagreed saying something
*

*> like 'philosophy with accuracy epsilon is not attractive idea'.
*

*> I was wrong.
*

*>
*

*> Common sense indeed suggests that you are correct.
*

*> There are several arguments.
*

*>
*

*> For instance, conscious experiences bind to single experience if there
*

*> is arbitrary but nonvanishing small entanglement present. It is difficult
*

*> to understand why conscious experiences would become separate experiences
*

*> precisely when entangelment is zero and integrate to single experience
*

*> for arbitrary small entanglement. Rather, one would expect
*

*> some critical entanglement entropy below which integration
*

*> does not occur.
*

*>
*

*> I found that this is the case!
*

*>
*

*> The point is that real states are mapped to their p-adic counterparts
*

*> and if real entanglement entropy is smaller than the pinary resolution
*

*> (recall pinary cutoff) then real entanglement with entanglement
*

*> entropy below pinary cutoff is mapped to zero p-adic entanglement!
*

*> p-Adic entanglement could be even defined as entanglement with
*

*> the unique pinary cutoff! Pinary cutoff defines the resolution
*

*> of conscious experience also.
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> Best,
*

*>
*

*> MP
*

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 408] Re: [time 399] On the Problem of Information Flow between LSs"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 406] Dissipation and quantum jumps between quantum histories"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:05 JST
*