Matti Pitkanen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 1 Jul 1999 20:08:30 +0300 (EET DST)
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
> Hi All,
> I am resubmitting a cleaned up versions of Robert Fung's interesting post.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <owner-time>
> > To: <owner-time>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 1999 7:14 PM
> > <email@example.com>]
> > Subject: Re: [time 417] The double-aspect ontology of David Chalmers
> > Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> > > I have probably read these lines a couple of years ago.
> > > This is nice formulation for dualism. Experience and physics as same
> > > thing seen from different sides. I believe that Chalmers defines physics
> > > what I would call objective reality. And experience as conscious
> > > information about it. There are several counterarguments.
> > >
> > > a) Why and how universe decomposes into several regions having inside and
> > > outside. Why no only single huge conscious experience representing all
> > > possible information about Universe meaning drowning into details as
> > > *duality* would suggest?
> > >
> > > b) Why conscious experiences seem to give so little information about the
> > > objective reality?.
> > >
> > > c) How it is possible to have wrong information, make mistakes, in the
> > > framework of strict duality?
> > >
> > > d) Isn't consciousness is epiphenomenon? Is free will illusion?
> > >
> > > e) Doesn't this lead to panpsychism as Chalmers himself admits?
> > >
> > > The manner to save the day is to introduce quantum jump between objective
> > > realities and define conscious information as information difference.
> > Sounds like he's saying the physical objective reality is
> > absolute Rosetta stone mediating relative subjective realities.
But does the duality hypothesis allow concept of relative subjective
realities? Single objective reality<--> single subjective reality?
> > The parts of subjective realities which do not utilize this
> > translation are not verifiable and can be communicated
> > as fictions, but are not globally invariant. The sanity-insanity
> > problem additionally makes any global subjective invariant
> > mythical.
> > More practically, this is the analogy-logy dualism ?
> > If I say something has a 60-40 probability, without
> > further constraints, this applies to many many things
> > and the relationship between those things is analogous
> > not logous(logical) or causual. The macronyms we give
> > to such things are literal metaphors without further
> > constraints like giving the name platypus to that which
> > cannot be classified in the usual taxonomy.
> > But also, "absorption" is similar in that it means something
> > in two contexts. The macronym "absorption" in physics means
> > a kind of "many decoherent resonances". The micronym "absorption"
> > means a kind of "single coherent resonance". In the former,
> > absorption is the noisy transfere of energy to a whole whereas
> > in the microcosm is the noise there on an individual level
> > where photons are accepted into atoms ?
> > The "causual logic" that works in the macrocosm like saying
> > "fire produces heat" is one in which the constraints are
> > "coherent" in a linguistic sense.
> > Linguistic coherence can be observed in the many semantic
> > interpretations where the usage of the form "its" and "it's"
> > is determined:
> > "He decorated the inside of the tree house and now its outside."
> > "He decorated the inside of the tree house and now it's outside."
> > The distinguishing rule determines the outcome.
> > The minimal set of quantum physical operators is meant to
> > be sufficient to distinguish states. This state labelling
> > leads to the statefunction which are the eigenfunctions
> > of the operators but the is no single statefunction for all
> > the operators must commute as in a classical state of coherence.
> > The two fundamental schools of zen are Rinzai and Soto which
> > teach in complementary ways. The student is bounced back
> > and forth between these as the teacher determines s/he needs
> > to balance his attitude. The student becomes "coherent" bouncing
> > back and forth between these dual mirrors. "Enlightenment"
> > becomes a subjective state of coherence when all subjective
> > dualisms are "resolved". Here "resolved" has the same sense
> > as understanding the "Heisenberg Microscope" in terms of
> > the resolution of uncertainties.
Hofdstanter has written beautiful Zen inspired text in his 'Godel, Escher,
Bach'. He talks about unasking the question. Instead of answering yes or
nor one can answer 'mu'! Kind of extension of logic to 3-valued logic
perhaps? I have pondered what could be the counterpart of 'mu' moment
Possible suggestion (meant to be take as 'just a thought').
a) In p-adic context entanglement
without entanglement entropy is possible, kind of attention without
attachement. This is realized if entanglement probabilities have
p-adic norm equal to one.
b) If some eigenvalues of S=0 density matrix are identical,
quantum jump to final state, which is not pure but characterized by
projection operator to higher-dimensional eigen space of density matrix,
c) In real case strong NMP does not allow this kind of quantum jump but
in p-adic case strong NMP it might be possible
under some additional conditions.
In this kind of quantum jump complete choice between alternatives
is not made. Could these moments of conscious be 'mu' type?
> > That the Fourier uncertainty is purely mathematical suggests
> > an even greater subjective application for the HUP principles.
> > It's not a just physical law but a subjective-objective law that
> > mediates the mind-body duality problem.
> > http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/GULLIVER.HTM
Did I understand correctly: subjective-objective duality is meant to be
like momentum-position duality?
> > Fermions are more constrained than bosons. The formalisms
> > which deal with bosons are much more "subjective"
> > and have direct metaphors in ch'an/zen buddhism.
> > A caged lion, like fermions, only lets you see the caged lion
> > and not the wild lion but both are aspects of the lion.
> > --
> > http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:36:54 JST