[time 476] Parallel translation, etc...: part II

Matti Pitkanen (matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi)
Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:32:51 +0300 (EET DST)

This is continuation to to me reply.

> The western concept of a single Divine
> entity that exists "in eternity" is at odds with the most basic
> requirements of a consious "Self". Only finite entities can be
> self-aware. Consiousness without the ability of self-awareness is a mute
> notion, it is useful only to model particles. There is no Mind, in the
> usual meaning involved, only simple logical entailment.

This seems to be real difference in our beliefs!

a) Consciousness without self awareness is possible in my framework
but is not especially interesting. Just a single flash of consciousness.

b) I do not believe Mind as continuous stream of cs but
as self: subsystem able to remain unentangled in subsequence
quantum jumps (time developments U).

This is deep notion: this has become clear. Takes few weeks to see the
consequences. Most importantly: it has become clear that

*thought does not correspond to single quantum jump.*

This is impossible for simple reason that the average increment of
psychological time is extremely small in single quantum jump for
all reasonable estimates of time increment.
Our thoughts are very slow in this time scale and involve
perhaps something like 10^40 quantum jumps typically.

The notion of self however saves the situation by bringing in
experienced continuity. Thoughts can be identified as hierarchical
cascades waking up selves withing selves representing basic building
blocks of thought (or more
generally cognitive act). One could say that selves represent
symbols about which AI people are talking. Just yesterday I played with
this notion trying to understand how musical experience could be
understood (frequencies correspond to different selves
waking up above critical Fourier amplitude and falling
asleep below it).

Logical causation is realized both as set theoretic and
temporal causation simultaneously. Set theoretic
caustion: A-->B corresponds to self
B is subself of A and temporal causation results from
the fact that subself of self cannot wake up before A has
woken up.

> > > > b) In accordance with this parallel transport in spacetime surface
> > > > reduces to parallel transport in imbedding space. Measuring of
> > > > distances reduces to that in imbedding space. Etc...
> > > > Especially important induced quantity is CP2 Kahler form
> > > > whose projection on spacetime surface defines Maxwell field.
> > >
> > > The argument about "a priori orderings" that I have been
trying to
> > > communicate since the beginning of the Time List relates to this!
> > > Oneness aspect of the Universe is forever out of reach since it is
> > > Everything simultaneously. It would have at least a multiple
> > > topology - everything mapping isomorphically to everything else... I
> > > proposing that the subsets of U are simply-connected manifolds, up
> > > isomorphism in the classical limit of hbar = zero.
> >
> > I understand your point completely. But this is simply all about basic
> > philosophy.
> I am a philosopher after all! :-)
> > I accept three ontological levels. Material existence (spacetime
> > surfaces), subjective existence (sequence of quantum jumps as moments
> > cs and objective/informational/whatever existence (single quantum
> >
> > Correct me if I am wrong: You accept only single ontological
> > level: experiences/subjective existence and since this subjective
> > existence obviously gives very limited information about spacetime
> > etc... Thus it is logical that you want replaced the Riemannian
> > etc... by more primitive concepts containing not so much information.
> Umm, I am not getting information flow... I see a Hierarchical
> of Levels.
> 1)The One: At the grundlagen, we have The Universe In-itself. It is
> Existence, it included all and is all.

Space of all possible quantum histories in my approach: the space
of all possible universes.

> 2)The TWO: there we have the essential dichotomy of subject-Object, the
> Duality of Self versus Other, of Information versus Matter.

Subject-object dichotomy is realized geometrically as cognitive
and material spacetime sheets in my approach.

Quantum histories =objective realities says LOGOS=COSMOS. Identity instead
of duality.

On the other hand I have informational time development
given by quantum mechanical time development and time development
of matter as geometry: absolute minimization of Kahler action.

> 3)The Many: there we have the potential infinity of possible different
> aspects of the One, relative to each other.
The summation hypothesis implies that there is an infinite hierarchy
of selves, subsystems able to remain *p-adically* unentangled
during subsequence quantum jumps (this is dynamical property),
such that each self forms abstraction from the experiences
of all of its subselves, realizes the Many aspect. The ultimate
One is the entire universe, God, who cannot be entangled
with any larger subsystem and is whole time in wake-up

        The idea I have that information is not mere epiphenomena of
matter or
> matter merely epiphenomena of information. We really need to have a
> discussion on Pratt's work to get into the subtleties of this notion.

Here I agree and regarded the notion of quantum between different
universes essential for the realization of this requirement.
The notion of single Universe is very dangerous in this respect:
I find it difficult to see why it would ont lead to materialism.

> > > Here is a crude sketch of my idea about the applicability of
> > > geometry:
> > > "The necessary and sufficient condition that a Weyl geometry may be
> > > reduced to a Riemannian geometry is that a vector keep its original
> > > length after transplantation along an arbitrary closed trajectory.
> > > Indeed, the condition of such a length preservation is ...
> > >
> > > (15.40) \surface integral_C of dl/l = \surface integral_C
> > > dx^\alpha = 0
> > >
> > > [forgive my terrible ascii]
> > >
> > > and it is well known that \PHI_\alpha|\beta - PHI_\beta|\alpha
> > > \equivalent 0 is the necessary and sufficient condition for the
> > > integrability requirement of (15.41) in simply connected regions."
> > > [from Introduction to General Relativity by Adler, Bazin and
> > > 1975. pg. 496]
> >
> > OK. This is obvious.
> >
> > > These "simply-connected regions" would have properties that
> > > represented by Maxwell field equations. These define the patterns of
> > > causal connections that M^4's represent. They have the appearance of
> > > being unique from the point of view of an observer O because they
> > > the framing within which an observation by O is possible.

This I undestand and agree. In TGD also every self forms its own conscious
representation of spacetime. But representation is in question. Not
'real' spacetime: rather p-adic(:)!

> > > for the sake of illustration the ability to observe this projection
> > > process "from a divine point of view" we would see that each O (an
> > > has its own M^4 constructed piece by piece by mappings between its
> > > internal propagator's (quantum mechanical) dynamic's configuration
> > > and points in the manifold W.
Also this I graps dimly: but the problem is how to make this precise
mathematical set-theoretic notion.

> Did this make any sense?

> > > What is difficult to grasp is that the "points" that make up W
are the
> > > possible exteriors as centers of mass ("cm"). In other words, the
> > > "exteriors" of LS are ontologically different from the "interiors"!
> > > former are facets of the "MANY" and thus appear "classical" while
> > > latter are finite facets of the "ONE" and are quantum mechanical!
> > > ONE and the MANY are co-inductive aspects of the Universe, they
> > > each other, but the "meaning" of such definition is only possible
for CE
> > > reasons as being "in time" and since each LS, as a unique facet of
> > > has its own time and gauge scale, it constructs its own local
> > > "reality".
> > >
> > > > c) This means geometrization of classical
> > > > gravitational and classical gauge fields.
> > > > Metric, the vector formed by components of spinor connection
> > > > of imbedding space, etc are projected to corresponding
> > > > tensor quantities defined on spacetime surface.
> > > > Note that since shadow is created by projection map,
> > > > dynamics of shadows is indeed in question in precise sense!
> > >
> > > Umm, I fail to see how it is necessary and sufficient to
require that
> > > spinoral properties be aspects of the ONE.
> >

> > What is beautiful is that spinor structure is direct concomitant of
> > Riemannian geometry. Under very general conditions Riemann geometry
> > defines spinor structure uniquely. Spin is thus purely geometric
> > property. In case of infinite-dimensional configuration space
> > spin is extremely abstract concept and does not have interpretation as
> > spin as rotation. Different many particle states are in
> > infinite-dimensional context analogous
> > to different spin states of ordinary spinor.
> Yes! This is why I say that spinor structure is a construction,
> it is "direct concomitant of Riemannian geometry". The notion that each
> observer "constructs" its local reality or world by interacting with
> other such observers is an attempt to model experience. It is impossible
> to model any particular sujective experience, why? Because "to
> experience it" is equivalent to "to construct it". If two observers were
> to construct the very same local reality they would have to be one and
> the same observer at that moment! If we generalize and use fuzzy logic,
> we can say that two or more observers "have the same local reality" and
> thus we can explain the illusion of a single classical space-time, with
> its Riemannian geometry and spinor structures, etc.!

In TGD context the mappings of geometric structures to their p-adic
counterparts corresponds to forming various *p-adicities* the views of
different observers, selves, about same underlying *reality*.

> The a priori existence of "different spin states of ordinary
spinor" is
> merely an inference based on local experience, it only exist in our
> minds, in the sense that it is knowable. To posit that the Universe
> (Level 1) has any particular features is inconsistent. Properties are
> Level 3.

I agree if I use instead of the word Universe the word 'set
of all possible configuration space spinor fields, all possible

Difference in our notions is that I introduce
the space of all possible universes: this is extremely natural
from the point of view of physics since every theory predicts
myriads of possible universes.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:36:57 JST