Matti Pitkanen (email@example.com)
Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:40:08 +0300 (EET DST)
This like Terminator, The return of Terminator I, II,....ad infinitum!
In part IV we end up with the proposal that
the replament of NP-computability with quantum computatibility
by a infinite computer (the universe) with infinite computing time
might be the TGD:eish version of computability(;-)
> > > > The point is that I do *not* identify observations as points of
> > > > spacetime or configuration space. They are not active 'events'.
> > > > Quantum jumps between quantum states= quantum histories are events
> > > > cannot localize them to anywhere (one can of course, identify
> > > > these events as pairs of possible initial and final quantum
> > > > so that one can speak about the space of all possible
> > > I say that observations are co-inductively related posets of
> > > an abstraction since true infinitesimal points can not be
> > > from each other as they can not encode any information!!!), not
> > > individual points per say.
> > I undestand that you great idea is identify observations with
> > structures, 'posets of points of space'. I also parametrize
> > the set of all possible observations: not as posets but as
> > allowed quantum history pairs: but this parametrization tells
> > anything about content of observation: it is just labelling: the only
> > thing that matters that this naming scheme is one-to-one. I believe
> > that the content of observation/cs experience cannot be expressed by
> > mathematical formula.
> Sure, but when we construct intricate geometrical model we are
> just that! We are attempting to express the content of observations/cs
> experience with a mathemathical formula! SO long as we understand that
> the "model" is not the "thing" we are ok.
But what differentiates the model from the thing? Does this
difference mean that mathematical formula does not characterize
the observation completely?
> > > To call them "space-time framings" speaks to
> > > the fact that we always make observations in terms of a M^4 frame...
> > > quantum jumps are more epiphenomena that objective, but the
> > > that observers can only communicate effectively about M^4 framings
> > > do not logically contradict each other follows from CE! The
> > > schizophrenic is an example of an observer that is attempting to
> > > communicate about a M^4 framing that is logically inconsistent with
> > > another's!
> > >
> > But there is the notion of observer. You take it as granted. I take
> > observation fundamental.
> No! I, like you, take observation as fundamental! I just am being
> explicit about the fact that what each observer has a framing of their
> observations is not an a priori given, it is a construction! Thus, with
> Pratt I say "cognito, ergo eram", I think therefore I was....
I express it more technically: cogito, sequence of quantum jumps
without any gap between existed (;-). Or even more precisely:
a cascade like generation of selves within me occurred.
> > > > I see no problems with Heisenberg's uncertainty relations:
> > > > time development operator U reduces at QM limit to Schrodinger
> > > > Metric, etc.. classical gauge fields are *not* quantized in TGD.
> > > > Neither spacetime coordinates are quantized. There is
> > > > absolutely no quantization, only classical geometry of
> > > > infinite-dimensional configuration space and classical spinor
> > > > configuration space. Oscillator operator algebras etc are
> > > > this approach.
> > >
> > > I see the evolution of information in terms of the evolution
of the LSs
> > > as they interact. Thus the act of the Universe 'experiencing itself'
> > > an ongoing process. It is what "concurrent computation" is all about
> > > a fundamental sense! Again, this is why I find Peter's work so
> > > :-)
> > >
> > Here here agree completely. But 'universe=experience about universe'
> > is where I cannot follow you. This is simply too strong assumption and
> > leads to the hopeless attempt of writing formula for the contents
> > of cs experience.
> The Universe is not experience about the Universe! I apologize if
> not express this well. The Universe is mere Existence of All that
> exists, everything simultaneously.
Yes. I understood this from above. This would be for me the space
of all universes, quantum histories.
>Experiences are \epsilon-consistent
> information structures (Complete Atomic Boolean Algebras are examples)
> that require finite material structure to be actualized. An observation
> is an actualization, it is the "enbodiment" of the information.
Again I follow: quantum jumps, actualizations, mean hopping around space
of quantum histories.
> Descartes was incorrect in his dualism, because he assumed that mind and
> matter were invariant substances, I, with Pratt, propose that they are
> "acts", and acts can only be actual *in time*. Existence has no time
> associated, thus it does not generate local experience; it is the local
> actualities of LSs that do that. :-)
> > > > I just saw a paper in which it was shown that divergence problem
> > > > not solved by noncommutatitivy of the spacetime coordinates. There
> > > > problem with the loss of general coordinate invariance. One must
> > > > special coordinates and very high symmetries if one wants
> > > > special coordinates.
> > >
> > > Could you give me the reference of this paper? I can order a
> > > the library! :-)
> > It was paper by my 'boss' Masud-Chaichian and Peter Presnajder and
> > theoretician. They constructed noncommutative QFT in two-dimensional
> > For cylinder it worked but for more general case they found
> > They also suggested generalization of results to higher dimensional
> > I do not have the paper here but I could ask for bibliodata.
> Thanks! ;-)
I try to find the paper next week.
> > > [MP]
> > > > God of Singularity concept is based on traditional concept of
> > > > psychological time. Also the question why everything has not
> > > > happened is created by the same concept of psychological time.
> > >
> > > Yes, but here the error is in the tacit (subconscious)
> > > the psychological time of one person is one and the same of that of
> > > another! The clocking by the QM propagator of the LS defines the
> > > individual time of the LS, thus representing psychological time very
> > > well!
> > Also that. But the real blunder is the identification
> > is the assumption that *contents of cs experience correspond to
> > time=constant snapshot*.
> > Neurophysiologists tell us that this is not the case. Consdier music
> > as example. We are able to experience frequencies, which
> > is nonlocal concept with respect to time.
> Yes, that is why I use an M^4 to frame an observation, there are
> spatial and temporal non-localities involved. This is also why we can
> use a RW metric to model how the space-time configurations of a single
> observation are distributed! This speaks to concurrence, we are not able
> to experience points, we experience hyper-surfaces! So, we agree here!
Not quite! Experiencing of mere hypersurfaces would not make possible
experiening of frequencies: complete localization in time means
by uncertainty principle of Fourier Analysis means that there is not
frequency information. Cognition must be time nonlocal if it
is to give some information about what will happen and happened.
This is why cognitive spacetime sheets made possible by the classical
nondeterminism of Kahler action are so crucial for TGD.
> > > The "everything has not already happened" notion is indeed
> > > psychological time, but in the sense stated above. "Everything"
> > > included all possible "actual" experiences, and obviously, these
> > > NP-complete computational issues! This later notion is at the heart
> > > my argument.
> > >
> > > > I regard this concept as badly wrong. In TGD framework subjective
> > > > corresponds to quantum jumps and there can be *no first quantum
> > >
> > > I am not communicating my notion since your are not aware of
> > > NP-completeness problem! Karl Svozil's papers point the way! We
> > > that "there can be *no first quantum jump*"! The ideas of
> > > and related issues involved are in Peter's papers...
> > I have studied Peter's papers (rather technical!). My view is that
> > start from so technical concept like NP-completeness in building model
> > for universe: the reason is that I do not believe that universe
> > itself into existence: it just exists! Even more, it is able to
> > itself with a new one again and again and do also some computation
> > besides that!
> Matti, NP-Completeness is not merely a technical concept! It is a
> fundamental problem! How does the Universe calculate the minimum energy
> configuration of a protein molecule? How does the Universe figure out
> the most stable orbits in a stellar system? How is it that soap bubbles
> always cover the most volume with the least surface? How is it that a
> quasi-crystal can grow at all? How is it that Lagrangians are calculated
> by the Universe? All of these questions are aspects of the
> NP-Completteness problem!
But why universe should calculate it? Even for modelling
purposes in some remote psychological future and even at subjective
distance of infinitely many quantum jumps? And how should universe
calculate itself to existence: does the hardware
used belong to universe. This like Munchausen trick: logical
Quantum jump replaces the computation (in classical sense as I
understand). Quantum jump is what allows quasi-chrystal to grow!
In the initial universe quasi-chrystal cannot grow but by
quantum jumps one ends up to the universe where quasi-christal
> What is interesting is that it has been proven that if there
> finite computational scheme that can compute a given example of an
> NP-complete problem, this scheme or algorithm can be transformed in
> polynomial time into a scheme to compute any other NP-Complete problem.
> But this, I think, only works for situations that can be modeled (or
> "simulated") by Turing Machines. Peter's work shows us that most of the
> computations that occur are not TM simulatable and thus we need to look
> at this more closely.
Perhaps it is not an accident that quantum jump can be regarded
at general level as infinitely long quantum computation.
Psi_i corresponds to initial state of quantum computer. UPsi_i
corresponds to the final state of qcomputer after infinitely long
calculation and UPsi_i-->Psi_f means halting of quantum computation
and emerges of the result of computation as conscious experience.
What about NP completeness problem when one introduces
infinitely large quantum computers calculating infinitely long time?
Can nondeterministic computations help.
What about sequences of quantum computations each lasting infinitely
long time?: these are suggested by the notion of self. Thought
as a cascade of quantum jumps creating hierarchy of subselves of
[To avoid confusions: the calculation time has nothing to do with
the experience psychological time].
> > > > This requirement plus p-adic evolution
> > > > as gradual statistical increase of p-adic prime of the universe
> > > > immediately leads to the requirement that
> > > > also infinite p-adic primes are possible and that recent universe
> > > > must correspond to infinite prime. Every moment of consciousness
> > > > decomposes to infinite number of subexperiences with values of
> > > > psychological time ranging from zero to infinity. What we really
> > > > that local arrow of psychological
> > > > time exists: if one is satisfied with this then paradoxes
> > > > Universe becomes *4-dimensional* living being getting conscious
> > > > information about its entire 4-dimensional body in every quantum
> > > > Cognitive spacetime sheets are the sensory organs of this
> > > > large 4-dimensional living system.
> > > The notion of "gradual statistical increase of p-adic prime of
> > > universe" is given in my thinking in the sense that the overall
> > > concurrent interactions of LSs are modelable in this way. It would
> > > representation of the accumulated "experience of the Universe", but
> > > the caveat that it is information that can not be gotten in finite
> > > or finite energy with arbitrary accuracy. The operator formalisms
> > > Schommers talks about, I believe, is useful to us in thinking about
> > > this!
> > >
> > Yes: I have grasped the universe computes itself into existence
> > but....
> Umm, I do not say that "the universe computes itself into
> say that the individual experiences of Local Systems (using Hitoshi's
> definition of LSs) are given in terms of space-times framings. This
> follow from the distinction that I make between "existence" (qua CE) and
> "actuality" which is a "local notion" that represents the subjective
> experiences (observations, measurements, etc.) of an LS given any
> particular moment of their local time. Thus I say that the Universe
> experiences itself by the acts of observation of the finite LSs, which
> are considered computations of NP-complete problems.
OK. I see. What is your view about quantum computationalism?
LS:s as computationas of quantum-computable problems? This
would be TGD inspired computationalism!(;-).
> The key argument is that nothing can "happen" unless a price is
> Existence in-itself does not require the generation of equilibria. It
> *is* at equilibria with respect to itself, that is why it merely exists.
> It does not change, it has no duration or extension or any other
> properties other that mere existence. It is the grundlagen! I do not
> associate any space or time properties to it, those are the properties
> of the observations of Local Systems, not the Universe itself.
> > > > > > [SPK]
> > > > > > This notion is very different from Hitoshi's idea, but
> > > > > > difference is due to the different ways that time is treated.
> > > > > > I still see these as complementary! You see space-times as a
> > > > > > surfaces, subsets of the totality U that are connected by
> > > > > > "in time", Hitoshi, as I understand, sees space-times as the
> > > > > > poset of observations of LS, which are a priori quantum
> > > > > > systems existing tenselessly as subsets of the totality U.
> > > > > > Thus you are proposing space-times as a priori and
> > > > > > proposes quantum local systems as a priori, this is a
> > > > > > complementarity! We need to see that this is just a matter of
> > > > > > perspective!
> > > [MP]
> > > > I have the feeling that this is not a matter of perspective. Our
> > > > basic philosophies are different.
> > >
> > > In a way, yes. You are a Platonist, and I something different.
> > > that Plato's Idea Reality *is* the Universe in-itself, but as Kant
> > > argued well, is not knowable in-itself. I see it as Existence
> > > All experiences, measurements, observations, qualia or what ever,
> > > not given directly by their mere existence (as all exist in the
> > > ontological sense), but have finite properties given by the
> > > between the finite subsets or "facets" or LSs of the Universe. We
> > > only observe shadow, consciousness is not capable of knowling the
> > > "in-itself"!
> > Funny thing, reading this I find that I agree completely. But
> > the differences emerge: computationalism is one of the division
> And this is exactly why we must discuss the notions we have about
Well. Replacing NP-computability with quantum-computability is
what TGD would suggest.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:36:57 JST