[time 450] Re: Schommers' work

Matti Pitkanen (matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi)
Sat, 17 Jul 1999 06:18:54 +0300 (EET DST)

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:

> 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.

Important constraint for the fiber space is that it should explain
as much as possible facts unexplained by standard physics.
In Hitoshi's/your approach R^6/W^6 explains how local quantum mechanical systems
combine with global general relativistic spacetime. Fiber abstracts the
concept of local nonrelativistic quantum system. What troubles me
in this approach is that every point of X^4 contains local system. Somehow
only some fibers are 'active'. This same feature troubles me also
in Bohm's theory. Only some classical orbits are 'activated' in the
hydrodynamical flow defined by Schrodinger amplitude and correspond to
classical particles.

In my approach CP_2 geometrizes elementary particle numbers and classical
gauge fields in spirit very much to that of Kaluza-Klein theories.
Local system is now spacetime sheet. Cartesian product x in your
and Hitoshi's approach is replaced by topological sum # of 3-surfaces
representing local system and its complement (drill holes D^3 in
LS and complement and connect resulting boundaries S^2 by a tube S^2

The problem why the universe of conscious experience looks classical while
quantum universe is nonclassical, has bothered also me. For long time I
thought that the association X^3--> X^4(X^3) forced by
4-dimensional General Coordinate Invariance might be all that is needed
to understand this but I was wrong. The hypothesis that quantum jumps
correspond to quantum measurents, which are local at the level of
configuration space of 3-surfaces implies
localization of configuration space spinor fields in zero modes: this
means that moment of cs makes the world essentially classical.

> > 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