Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:41:00 -0400
Dear Matti,
Matti Pitkanen wrote:
snip
> > > Or experiencing it, gradually figuring out its shape. I believe that it
> > > exists there and my task is only to try to see sharply with my poor old
> > > eyes (;-).
> >
> > I agree and understand. Sometimes it is helpful to back away and look
> > at the "big picture" from a distance. We could notice inconsistencies
> > that are not obvious "up close", like Penrose's triangle! :-) I think
> > that the discussion of Schommers' work might help us, but we need to be
> > able to be open minded and try not to impose our own paradigm upon it. I
> > will try to send the copy off today.
>
> Yes. I am searching desperately inconsistencies on my own thinking but I
> admit that I cannot but believe in the big picture. This unability of not
> believe on some basic axioms is something fundamental to
> consciousness. They are part of our self. Without certain big ideas, deep
> beliefs, one could not have the passion. The only thing I can do is to is
> to try to build consistent world view based on these funny beliefs.
The way that consciousness seems to be based on particular paradigms is
reinforced by the finding of Gestalt psychology. The paradigm acts as a
connection matrix that defines the relations between the discrete qualia
that are observable in a "moment". For me the key idea is that each
individual observer has its own Gestalt, their own set of observables
that is projected on a space-time framing.
This idea seems to follow the fiber bundle formalism that both you and
Hitoshi are using. Hitoshi uses a Riemannian manifold X and you use M^4.
I think that we should consider W^n, a manifold that is defined by the
Weyl geometry. The fibering of this manifold defines the posets of
observations of the Local Systems. Hitoshi uses a Euclidean manifold R^6
to embed the scattering propagator and you use CP_2. Each model seems to
be similar basic concepts, but the formalisms differ as to how the base
manifolds are partitioned and how the fibers are connected.
> Open-mindedness is of course good idea and I do not pretend that I would
> not have the trait to sell TGD. But could one consider this as kind
> of a role game? Could we identify us simply as soldiers
> fighting in the troops of different Philosophies? Computationalism
> inspired TOE -- Geometry based TOE? Or something like that. Good
> soldier regards his enemy as a colleague and is proud of having honour
> to kill or to get killed by a respected colleague(;-) and as a good
> professional does the best to identify the weak points of the opponent?
>
> Best Regards and tongue in a cheek,
:-) Indeed! Ideas compete just as organisms for resources! This is
another reason why I think of the information "world" as dual to the
physical "world", but this duality applies only to the individual
subsets of the Universe...
Kindest regards,
Stephen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:36:56 JST