**Matti Pitkanen** (*matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi*)

*Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:47:49 +0300 (EET DST)*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 481] Music and summation hypothesis"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 479] Parallel translation,etc... part V"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 494] [time 487] Re: [time 480] Parallel translation, etc...part VI (!)"

Here continues the answer to your second posting.

*>
*

*> [MP]
*

*> > > b) *Spacetime* are dynamical and not unique and quantum states
*

*> > > are superpositions of classical spacetime surface. The localization
*

*> > > in zero modes associated with every quantum jump localizes quantum
*

*> > > history to the set of spacetime surfaces which are identical in
*

*> > > macroscopic aspects characterized by zero modes.
*

*> [SPK]
*

*> > Does this implicitly assume a unique set of measuring "tools"
*

for all

*> > possible observers?
*

*> [MP]
*

*> No. I think that measuring tools is not fundamental concept: it is
*

*> too 'classical'. Quantum measurement is more promising starting point.
*

*> Localization in zero modes obviously can be regarded as
*

*> *quantum measurement* of zero modes: this of course does not mean
*

*> that contents of conscious experience would contains values of
*

*> zero mode coordinates(:-)!
*

*> **
*

*>
*

*> Why not? If the causal connective structure of the space-time
*

framing

*> of an experience is given by a set of null rays (this is what the light
*

*> cone structure is after all!)
*

Good question. I belive that sensory information is to large extend

information about zero modes but that finite p-adic p characterizing

the self=observer, in particular finite size of self, gives limits for

this information: at most p*log(p)/log(2)

bits. There are infinity of zero modes so that

there is no hope of compressing the information contained by the

values of zero modes to finite number of bits.

"Localization in the zero modes" is

*> equivalent to my concept of "constructing a space-time"! The "values of
*

*> zero mode coordinates" is a strictly relative notion! This is why
*

*> tensors are needed to model the movement of objects in space-time. The
*

*> particular values used are irrelevant, what matters is that the
*

*> information content can be communicated.
*

Yes. The values of zero modes coordinates is relative notion:

as such these number contain no information. Unless of course, one

can identify preferred coordinates fixed by symmetry considerations.

Perhaps it is the direct experience about localization which represents

what it is to have these values of zero modes.

*> Perhaps it would help me to explain that I believe that motion is
*

point

*> to point teleportation rather than the classical motion of a
*

*> transposition of a rigid object or wave within an independently existing
*

*> space.
*

Intesting idea! This would be quantum level concept involving quantum

jump whereas ordinary classical motion is purely geometric concept.

By the way, motion in zero modes occurs as hopping quantum jump by quantum

jump:

x1-->x2--x3---

Just like Brownian motion. In fact, I believe that Brownian motion

indeed corresponds to this kind of motion. The possibility to

Brownian motion to move faster than light would not be a

result of nonrelativistic approximation but real physical

effect.

*>
*

*> [SPK]
*

*> > If so, how? I am very aware that the usual
*

*> > explanation involves the notion that numbers "exist" a priori, but,
*

*> > really, how can it be affirmed that something is knowable just by
*

*> > postulating its existence?
*

*> [MP]
*

*> By no means! Objective realities exists and quantum jumps
*

*> between them make it possible to learn more and more about the
*

*> nature of objective realities. Sooner or later with respect to
*

*> subjective time these quantum jumps begin to make claims
*

*> about what these existences are and at some quantum the discovery
*

*> of the importance of the internal mathematical consistency occurs.
*

*>
*

*> Subjective reality is doomed to make hypothesis about nature of
*

*> objective existences and test them. It can never be certain.
*

*> **
*

[SPK]

*>
*

*> Yes on both counts! This is why I say that the Universe can only
*

*> experience itself via the interactions of its subsets! Only in the limit
*

*> of Eternity is absolute certainty possible! Absolute Boolean certainty
*

*> is impossible within the domain of experience because of the
*

*> NP-Completeness problem! The material resources available to a subset
*

*> LS_i of the Universe to compute the solution to the n-body problem (that
*

*> is the Langrangian of the complement of the LS_i) increase exponentially
*

*> slower that the number of subsets that become modelable by the
*

*> computation. This is Malthus in the Large!
*

*>
*

*> [SPK]
*

*> > CE does not imply necessity of knowledge or
*

*> > experienciability! In order to allow for the uniqueness of the
*

*> > individual self, it is necessary and sufficient that there is at least
*

*> > one attribute that can be unique to such. The mere CE postulate is not
*

*> > enough, we need a dynamical difference. When one posits a pre-given
*

*> > metric for all and assumes that all observer exist *in* the same
*

space,

*> > it is the postulation of a prison for the self from which there is no
*

*> > escape.
*

*> [MP]
*

*> I do not assume observer: self is closest to observer I can get.
*

*> Sequence of quantum jumps during which informational time development
*

*> operator does not generate p-adic entanglement. Observers
*

*> do not exist anywhere! They, or selves, correspond to sequences of
*

*> p-adically unentangling quantum jumps. This is extremely deep and
*

*> important point.
*

*> **
*

*>
*

*> Umm, Yes, but, just because any given observer can not interact
*

with

*> all others, does not imply that they are not "out there". I am saying
*

*> that there must exist an observer for every possible experience. Not all
*

*> experiences can be communicated within a world (remember how I define
*

*> such!). This is why we can not observer objects traveling faster than
*

*> light; we can not measure such motions because the observations of the
*

*> observers can not be logically infered within our \epsilon of accuracy.
*

*> Logic contrains observations, not some a priori defineteness! Please
*

*> recognize the failure of naive realism! Please!
*

[MP]

I realize the failure of naive realism. I have given up the notion

of single objective reality, I have given up the notion of

observer as continous stream of consciousness! I have given

up the standard notion of psychological time! I have given up

many standard dogmas to avoid paradoxes.

What I am suggesting that communication cannot be modelled as mapping

between observers. Much more delicate process occurs: not

at the geometric level but at quantum level. Informational

time development U during quantum computation (that is U)

is what gives rise to communication between selves.

Quantum nondeterminism implies that conscious logic is

not sharp, it is erratic but extremely flexible.

*>
*

*> snip
*

*> [MP]
*

*> > > Each quantum jump changes the macroscopic characteristics of these
*

*> > > spacetimes in quantum superposition and they seem to naturally
*

correspond

*> > > to our sensory information: localization in zero modes is quantum
*

*> > > measurement of zero modes and sensory experiences seem indeed to
*

give

*> > > information about zero modes. Perception is quantum measurement in
*

this

*> > > sense.
*

*> >
*

*> > Sure, I can agree with that. Each person's sensory experiences
*

can be

*> > explained a unique integration of many almost disjoint quantum
*

*> > measurements, thus I think of posets...
*

*> [MP]
*

*> Actually the measurement can be said to be disjoint in well
*

*> defined sense. Separate selves mutually unentangled.
*

*> **
*

*>
*

*> Yes! This is why separate selves have separate indentities! I say
*

that

*> experiences are "almost disjoint" since they differ in at least the
*

*> "point of identity". The notion of a fixed point under a given set of
*

*> transformations is what I considered before I has educated by Peter's
*

*> work. The Self, within Peter's formalism, is a greatest fixed point, I
*

*> think. Umm, I need to review his paper:
*

*> http://www.cs.brown.edu/~pw/papers/math1.ps
*

*>
*

Quantum entanglement is what destroys selves. For instance, could

it be that the separate notes in chord correspond to

frequency-selves which have entangled to form chord-self?

This would explain why we do not hear separate notes but entire

chord.

By the way, the attempt to understand music in terms of self hierarchy

seems to be exciting. Metaphor for harmonious co-existence

seems to have direct translation to quantum self organization.

Harmoniously co-existing selves personal subselves to generate

higher 'enlightened' self having no decomposition into subselves

and having experience of oneness!(;-). Chords as enlightened

groups of notes in a state of Nirvana!

*> [SPK]
*

*> > But what is troubling me is the
*

*> > notion that the localization is somehow independent of what it is that
*

*> > makes the poset different for each person.
*

*> [MP]
*

*> There is big localization in entire configuration space which decomposes
*

*> into sublocalizations for selves.
*

*> **
*

*>
*

*> How is the information content of this localization given? This is
*

an

*> infinite NP-Complete problem that requires ETERNITY to compute! It can
*

*> not be given a priori!
*

TGD generously provides this eternity! The quantum computation defined

by informational time development operator lasts infinite amount

of lightcone proper time (not our psychological time which

is quite different thing).

Each moments of cs, meaning increment of psychological time by something

like 10^4 Planck times, involves single quantum computation

lasting this infinite period of lightcone proper time. It seems that

NP-completeness is not a problem in TGD:eish Universe!

Despite all this: I do not believe that universe exists by computing

itself.

*> This is my whole point as to why naive realism
*

*> fails! "It is not even wrong"! Think of the ability to predict the
*

*> weather on Earth, the computational power needed to predict with
*

*> arditrary accuracy (limit \epsilon -> 0) instantly exceeds the available
*

*> matter in the observable world!
*

Predicting is simulation, not existence! One must make sharp

distinction between these notions. As I already noticed

the idea of universe as computing itself seems to lead to

Munchausen paradox. Where is the hardware and software, can they

belong to the universe?

If it can not be predicted, it can not

*> be said to be determined, thus can not be observed either.
*

*> The self is actualized within its own time as the interactions
*

among

*> the LSs carry out the computation of "what will happen next"! We
*

*> construct our reality by interacting with each other. Read the
*

*> introduction to Frieden's book again, he is saying what I am saying!
*

*>
*

I understand what you are saying. This is probably the only possible

consistent philosophy in the framework in which one does not introduce

quantum jump and replace single objective reality with all

possible objective realities allowed by physical theory.

*> [SPK]
*

*> > I think that if we start out
*

*> > with the notion that each measurement is informative only in
*

comparison

*> > to some aspect of the measuring device, here a person, we could
*

perhaps

*> > avoid the trap of classically. The idea of a pre-existing classical
*

*> > world or space-time in which all observers are "embedded" is the
*

error,

*> > but it is very hard to escape it! It must be done. We need a radical
*

*> > shift in paradigm!
*

*>
*

*> [MP]
*

*> I agree that the assumption about pre-existing objective reality is
*

*> error. But I do not identify objective reality as spacetime
*

*> with observers imbedded but as quantum history. Imbedding space
*

*> has nothing to do with observers nor objective realities: it
*

*> only emerges as structure related to the configuration space which
*

*> is also pregiven.
*

*> **
*

*>
*

*> Umm, perhaps I am misinterpreting what you mean by "pregiven"! I
*

use a

*> notion identical to what Peter uses in the definition of Interaction
*

*> Machines! What is "pregiven" by one LS is not necessarily "pregiven" by
*

*> another! There is no way of entablishing absolute precedence, we only
*

*> have finite "windows" within which an LS can have a configuration as
*

*> actual.
*

I think that a lot of confusion is created by different views about

imbedding space. I do not regard its points as reprsentations of events:

it is quite too simple thing for that.

*> This is another reason why the naive realism of Newton et al is
*

just

*> plain wrong! The fact is that the concurrent ordering of events is an
*

*> infinite NP-Complete problem! Laplace and Minkowski's vision of the
*

*> Universe as a static 4-manifold is just a hallucination!
*

*>
*

*> [MP]
*

*> You want to give up pre-existing spacetime and replace it with something
*

*> dynamical whereas I want to give
*

*> up the notion of observer and replaced it with something quantum
*

*> dynamical.
*

*> **
*

*>
*

*> YES! Matti, this is exactly what Hitoshi's model of Local Systems
*

does!

*> Please read his papers again! The observer *IS* a quantum mechanical
*

*> system. Hitoshi does not get into the nitty-gritty details of the
*

*> composition of sub-LSs, but this is what your p-adic acomplish. I firmly
*

*> believe that your work is the needed generalization and extension of
*

*> Hitoshi's idea! Tis is why I get so emotional when I participate in
*

*> discussions with you! :-)
*

I am well aware of the similarities. The notion of self

as sussystem able to remain unentangled and characterized by

p-adic prime p is much analogous to the notion of self.

But there is big difference: I do not build mappings between observers.

My mapping corresponds to the mapping of real structures

to their p-adic counterparts, reality is mnapped to p-adicity'. The view

of self about world is determined by his personal p-adicity:

for instance, information gains are limited to be below

p*log(p)/log(2) bits.

*> [MP]
*

*> We are locating evolution at different levels. Otherwise we agree.
*

*> **
*

*>
*

*> No, we just have complementary view points! :-)
*

*>
*

Best,

MP

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 481] Music and summation hypothesis"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 479] Parallel translation,etc... part V"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 494] [time 487] Re: [time 480] Parallel translation, etc...part VI (!)"

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