[time 483] Re: [time 476] Parallel translation, etc...: part II

Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Sat, 24 Jul 1999 13:36:15 -0400

Dear Matti,

Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> This is continuation to to me reply.
> [SPK]
> > 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.*

        Yes! I think that there is a deep connection here with statistical
properties. The "ensemble" and the "time series" have, I believe,
correspondences in the structure of a self! Just as a single data bit or
point is "just a stochastic variable" and meaningless, like the "single
flash of consciousness", (having no meaningful information content). It
is the context of the "neighborhood" of the data point, given by either
the ensemble of time-series, that gives it meaning. Umm, I am failing to
paint my mental picture well here, perhaps I can communicate more detail
as we discuss further. (Effective communication is maximizing the
ability of the communicators to "mimic" (or predict within \epsilon
accuracy) each other's internal behavior!)
> 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.

        I agree. In my Forbidden paper, I said that the individual's local
framing is re-constructed, on the average, every 10^-44 seconds! I has
taking the prediction of QM of the cosmological constant seriously and
considering that the local "universe" (what I call a framing now) went
through a Big Bang to Big Crunch in a Planck time and that this repeated
endlessly (given an "immortal" observer, of course!)
> 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).

        A "frame rate" of 1 "thought" per 10^-44 seconds sure does give a good
illusion of continuity! :-)
> 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.

        Yes, the perception of individual time follows!
> > Umm, I am not getting information flow... I see a Hierarchical
> ordering
> > 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.

        Yes! The infomorphism established the identity between the local LOGOS
and local COSMOS. I say local, since there is more that one
self-identity, since there exist more than one self, person, LS, etc.
The MANY...
> 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.

        Yes, except that I, following Pratt, see these to as mathematical
duals! "Informational time development" = logical precedence or
entailment and "time development of matter as geometry" = causal time.
> > 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
> state(;-).

        Umm, I strongly question this last notion, but, I think that you have
something! It has been said that the world is God's dream, here you have
God who is awake... But I question what such a BEING would be aware of!
Unless IT is the ONE, there would exist the possibility that a larger
subsystem and you are saying that such is not the case. The problem I
see is that the ONE has no complement and thus has only NOTHING to be
aware of! (The NOTHING is the empty set.) If there is no information
content in the complement of a subsystem, there is nothing to be aware
of. Such a ONE would experience what is known as the DAEMON Paradox, it
would have no inertia, its framing would instantly react to its every
motion such that it can not define itself.
        Oh, I should mention that this implies that inertia is exactly canceled
out. I wish that I was familiar with the mathematics of this notion. It
is like a space-time manifold that is completely devoid of
matter-energy... It has no metric, I think...
> > 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.

        Yes! :-) The Universe (TOTALITY of EXISTENCE, the ONE) is completely
neutral, it is neither matter nor information! Thus I avoid the danger
of materialism! :-)
> > > > Here is a crude sketch of my idea about the applicability of Weyl's
> > > > 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
> > > > \PHI_\alpha 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
> Schiffer,
> > > > 1975. pg. 496]
> > >
> > > OK. This is obvious.
> > >
> > > > These "simply-connected regions" would have properties that are
> > > > 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
> > > > are 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(:)!

        YES! :-) My problem is that I am not knowledgeable of p-adic math, but
do understand the picture involved! :-)
> > > > 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
> LS)
> > > > has its own M^4 constructed piece by piece by mappings between its
> > > > internal propagator's (quantum mechanical) dynamic's configuration
> space
> > > > and points in the manifold W.
> >
> Also this I graps dimly: but the problem is how to make this precise
> mathematical set-theoretic notion.

        Yes, this is what I am very interested in accomplishing and need help!
I find the formalisms of Fuzzy sets and hypersets to be the ones needed,
but I need a successful combination of the two formalisms.

> > > 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, since
> > 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*.

        Umm, I think that holds if the structure has a strict ultrametric. Umm,
this is were I generalize and is perhaps why I fail to communicate my
notion that there does not have to be a "same underlying *reality*".
This is something very subtle! Have you read the "Ultrametricity for
physicists" paper by Rammal, Toulouse and Virasoro (Rev. Mod. Phys. 58,
765-788)? I could send copy!
        The idea is that the fractal structure of the phylogenetic tree of the
p-adic expansion (?) is not strictly self-similar for all possible
observers. If we only considered self-similar p-adic fractals your
statement would hold. The idea is that the intersection of observations
that give the "common worlds" of finite subsets of observers is due to
the identification (bounded isomorphisms ?) of their phylogenetic trees
(p-adic structures). It is like saying that an oak tree and a maple tree
share a "world in common" because they have enough in common in their
> > 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
> universes'.

        Ok, I agree this this. It is just that I see this as an
undifferentiable whole taken as an "in-itself". It is the ONE to me, and
includes all properties simultaneously. Like Brahma, I think...
> 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.

        Yes, this is what lead me to my conclusions. It occurred to me that the
field equations of GR given an infinite number of different space-times
depending on the values of the variables. I asked myself, what selects
out the particular world that I observe as locally "concrete". I can
kick a stone and my foot rebounds, so I say that it is real to me, but
can I really say that all possible observers would be able to experience
what I do? After reading about Black-holes and Penrose diagrams showing
multiple "universes" connected by black holes, I wondered how observers
in these "other universes" would be able to model each others behavior.
        I have been troubled by the scant treatment that has been given to the
notion of causality by physicists, given how troubling it is to
philosophers, and have been building a picture that would explain it.
All this, and other conversations and readings, have lead me here... I
apologize for my terrible memory for symbols, the math is my worst
problem! :-( But, discussing my silly idea with you is helping me!



PS, continuing now to the other pieces.

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