Stephen P. King (email@example.com)
Sat, 24 Jul 1999 15:25:05 -0400
Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> > > >I see them as constructed
> > > > dynamically in the act of observation in that they are aspect of the
> > > > framing. Thus I do not see them as a priori givens! Is it not
> > > > enough to show that the "shadow" is a construction of the mapping between LSs?
> > > > Do we really have to suppose that the "statue" exists "out there" prior to
> > > > the sculptor's work?!
> > > This is a good question. Your point of view makes possible to avoid
> > > dualism: observations contra world out there.
> > Could you elaborate? I don't understand? I thought that I was
> > saying that there is a duality, Level 2?!
> I understood with duality the materialistic idea that there is single
> objective universe out there independently of our observations.
> If this independent objective reality does not exist there is no duality.
> But of course, if you assume sculptor exists you have the duality
> but in weaker sense! So you must not assume the existence of sculptor
> but only the moments of creation and self of scultor(;-).
Yes, I say individual "observations" \equiv "world out there" for that
particular individual observer! The duality is like the duality of
Plotonic solids, except that we are talking about actions not rigid
objects; Pratt explains it...
> > > But so does also my approach. I see painting and landscape as one and the
> > > same thing! Painter exists only in the moment of consciousness when
> > > painting/landscape is replaced with a new one. Painter experiences some
> > > of the beauty of painting and, by artst's vanity concludes that he did
> > > it!
> > Sure, Pratt says that Chu spaces are both the player of the Game and
> > the Game itself. The Duality is in the complementarity! I agree with you
> > completely here! But notice that the "painting" and the "landscape" are
> > instances of "information" and "matter" structures! Their relationship
> > is the infomorphism! The Stone-Birkhoff duality!
> > (http://www.mcs.newpaltz.edu/faculty/clark.html)
> LOGOS= COSMOS is what I indeed assume.
Yes, I agree, it is just that I see LOGOS as only asymptotically
infinite. The phylogenetic hierachy represents the process of the LOGOS.
Remember LOGOS is an action, "the verb" in greek, literally!
> > The construction of a material symbol [painting] within is only the
> > construction of an information carrying structure [beauty] iff a similar
> > material symbol [print] elsewhere/when could be constructed from a
> > description of a similar information carrying structure [beauty]. We
> > must understand that [beauty] is a local notion and is not a priori
> > given. All properties are given only in relation to a finite subset of
> > all possible. Plato was wrong!
> There is important point here. Beauty, ugliness etc. are *qualities*.
> Length, duration, mass... are *quantities*. Quantities are properties
> of quantum histories/objective realities/ideas. Qualities
> are properties of quantum jump and one cannot number to them.
> Universes are not beutiful, beauty is in the quantum jump
> replacing universe with a new one where also the life is.
Sure, but how is is that we think of the *amount* of beauty, uglyness,
redness, etc. Quantities are subjective measures of qualities. I agree
with the rest of the statement! :-) We could say that Life is really the
process of "replacing universe with a new one" in an endless fashion.
The patterns that result from this process (dissipative structures) are
naively concidered as independent organisms.
> > > I see as the difficulty of your approach the necessity to provide
> > > formula for the contents of consciousness: this indeed seems to be the
> > > case if you identify reality as observations.
> > > *********
> > Yes. But, a model that gives us a way to predict what will be
> > experienced under an arbitrary conditional is what a physics is all
> > about! Thus, my attempt to identify "reality as observations" is a local
> > only notion, local in the sense that they are constructed within finite
> > M^4 framings which I am identifying with piece-wise constructed
> > Riemannian maifolds from the "bricks" that are posets of points in a
> > W^n.
> Theory *alone* is not enough since it cannot give formula for contents
> of cs expeience. But theory and experience can be combined: if one has
> good enough model for observer and external world and memories about
> previous experiences, one can indeed predict experiences and imagine what
> they will be! Theory *alone* is unable to say anything about
> what it is to experience this or that quantum jump.
Of course! We need theory and "fire breathed into it" (Stephen
Hawking's statement). Theories are a way of communicating our notions so
that we can test each others predictions...
> > > > It "exists" only in the sense of being a
> > > > possibility! The metric or related properties are given by the act of
> > > > observation which is determined by the local logical entailment aspect
> > > > of the informorphism that is the interaction between LSs.
> > > > To be sure, I need to discuss the "compactness" notion that you
> > > > mentioned before with regards to the W(r)...
> > > >
> > > This leads to the problems in the following sense. Our observations give
> > > extremely limited information about spacetime. I do not experience
> > > all the values of the metric tensor or classical gauge fields defined
> > > on it. Does this mean that one should give up entirely the notion
> > > of spacetime and what should be left? Some set discrete points perhaps:
> > > but how can you understand in this kind of context how observes
> > > invent concepts like moral and freedom and how the idea of infinity
> > > arises?
> > Good questions! The limitation of the information content involved in
> > our observations is due to the finiteness of the material configurations
> > available to encode information within the local "reality" of the
> > particular observer. We note that this local reality has the form of a
> > space-time as noted by Kant and other philosophers.
> > We can not experience all possible values of the metric tensor (or all
> > of the energy spectra, which range over -/+ R) simultaneously because of
> > the above restriction!
> > We only give up the notion of an independently pre-given space-time.
> > Instead we have the understanding that individual's observations and
> > measurements are not "absolutes given from above" but are local
> > constructions that are selected from the set of all possible by an act
> > of finite and discrete act of interaction.
> > While the concepts of "morals" and "freedom" are very important, I an
> > not addressing them directly, I see them as concepts that can be
> > communicated about within the interactions that are infomorphisms
> > between local systems. My idea here is very similar to Leibnitz's
> > monadology, except that I do not require that an external Divine entity
> > create them ab inition ex nihilo!
> These isomorphisms between local systems are replaced in my approach
> by mappings of real geometric structure to their p-adic counterparts:
> there is ineed 'reality' (realities) and this reality is mapped
> to p-adicity of particular self. There is no direct mapping
> between selves.
YES! This is what Pratt is saying in ratmech.ps! "Bodies can not
> You could counterargue that there is no communciation between selves
> in my approach: communciation is contained in quantum jump:
> Psi_i--> UPsi_i --Psi_f
> U is the informational time development giving rise to informational
> currents modelling the communication. Selves can hence
> communicate by forming cognitive representations about other
> selves as subselves. This is only mimicry but it is enough!
That is all I say that interactions are! You and I are respectively
"real" to each other only within the "window" of our computer inteface.
Tis is what Peter's work talks about. Each Observer (LS) can only
"interact" with others "through" the surface that is modeled as a common
surface. (Here we think of LSs as being like the insides of bubbles that
share a surface.)
To interact is to mimic each other's internal behaviour. This is what
is defined as "bisimulation"; your mind, with its actions, simulates the
actions of my body and my mind, with its actions, simulates the actions
of your body. If our respective simulations are identical, our knowledge
of each other is total! We would be one and the same person. The fact
that our framings of the world differ is an indication of the difference
that occurs in our bisimulations of each other.
The beforementioned notion of almost dijointness is relevant here!
> > Since I consider the Universe as having to definite properties in
> > itself, and the notion of an embedding space, as Level 2, has all
> > possible "length units", (not an absolute ONE, but MANY) but such are
> > not given independent of interactions, they are only defined within
> > particular interactions.
> Yes. Here our view points differ. Induction procedure brings in dynamics
> when imbedding space is nondynamical.
> BTW, this is also how dynamics enters in string models basically.
> The need to get spacetime from this picture however led to the
> introduction of dynamical imbedding space and
> spontaneous compactification. Tragic accident which stopped
> the development of theoretical physics for decades(;-)!
OK, my thinking about a n-dimensional manifold with a Weyl geometry
look svery much like you "inbedding space", it has "invertible" dynamics
and as M. C. Mackey points out, would have no evolution associated, so I
believe that it is "non-dynamical" in your sense... It is that LS has
individual space-times (with Riemannian geometry and RW metric) given by
a construction/projection/partition (I do not know the right word, it
means "to take a partially ordered fuzzy subset of W^n by almost
disjoint inclusion") taken from W^n.
But, the specific mathematics needs a lot of work! Pratt calls this a
"residuation" but his definition is very vague! :-(
> > In order to experience something that
> > exists it is necessary to construct a finite structure that can encode
> > the descriptive information about it, this allows for the information to
> > be communicated. The brain's structure of interconnected neurons is what
> > allows for the information content of our experiences to be communicated
> > and to be used to apprehend new information. Thus information requires
> > matter to be encoded in as symbols and matter requires information to
> > give it actual meaning. The existence property is mute with regard to
> > meaning or configurations!
> Objective existence has nothing to with meaning, would I say.
> Qualities and meaning are involved with quantum jump between objective
> existences. Matter does not give meaning: it is change
> of material configuration which contains the meaning.
Yes! Information content gives matter meaning, but only in the
bisimulational sense. Remember how information is defined in terms of
mutual agreements of associations. Thus if the material symbol "tree"
implies a green, leafy, fruitbearing, shadow-creating, etc. object for
you and for me, then we transfer information using such symbols. Howard
Pattee's papers are an excellent discussion of this notion:
> And also change of informational configuration: in quantum
> jumps conscious information gain is the difference
> between initial and final informations. Selves are eaters
> of information and U generates it in every quantum jump: we
> live in an information-prosperous world.
Yes, the construction of a self dissipates information, in the sense
that observing a given event or configuration alters it such that its
information content vanishes. This is the information equivalent to the
consumption of free energy or the generation of thermodynamic entropy!
The "U", I see as the construction of a new menu of choices from which
the observation is made. This united free will with the idea of local
determinism, e.g. each LS determines its reality, but only to the degree
that it can predict its behaviour. If the LS has infinite predictive
power, we get the absolute determinism of Newton and Laplace, if the LS
has zero predictive power, we get the complete randomness of
conventional QM. By allowing the computational (e.g. predictive) power
of an LS to range from 0 to 1 by "fuzzifying" the notion of a
topological neighborhood of a point, we can think of an LS as having a
real valued \epsilon of "self-determination". [WOW, I have not been
able to say this idea so well before! It has been a picture in my mind
for a very long time.]
Anyway, when we apply the pinary mapping formalism that you are expert
at, we get a model with a hierarchy of ever more "expressive" [Peter's
word] LSs. :-)
> > > Only some of its components commute at given time =constant section.
> > Can you elaborate on this?
> I state this somewhat inprecisely. I should have said that
> only some components of curvature tensor commute.
> This relates to the canonical quantization of metric as quantum field.
> a) The components of 3-metric are commuting physical
> quantities. g_ij: 6 alltogether. The remaining
> components of metric are nondynamical since general coordinate
> invariance (4 coordinates) implies that 4 components of metric
> are nondynamical and can be fixed: this gauge condition
> fixes the coordinates used. g_00 and g_0i are indeed
> good candidates for components of metric tensor fixed by some
> coordinate conditions. For instance g_0i could vanish.
> b) In quantization one constructs Hamiltonian formalism and
> identifies the canonical momentum densities as
> partial derivatives of Lagrangian density (curvature scalar
> times sqrt(g) with respect to time derivatives of metric
> components g_ij. Canonical momentum densities and g_ij commute
> to delta function as operators: this is microlocal causality
> stating that gravitons are point like particles.
> This is how it should roughly work. Unfortunately it does not.
Yes! I think that the main problem is that "point-like particles" can
not encode curvature, it is a non-local notion. Penrose talkes about
this in his work on 'twistors" space-time has no curvature, in his
model, until an infinite number of "gravitons" are introduced in it! I
believe that Frieden's method of constructing Lagrangians from the
Fisher information is a strong clue for us, since the information
involved in the bisimulation idea is exactly what Fisher information is
about! We, hopefully, will get into this in detail soon. I wish Frieden
would join our group!
> > > But as we know, this approach to quantum gravitation does not work!
> > > TGD approach is quite different and in complete accordance with
> > > uncertainty principle. There is no quantization of
> > > metric or other classical gauge fields.
> > Topological Geometro-Dynamics, to me is a model of how the worlds
> > (given by the intersection of a finite number of local "realities")
> > behave. This is well within the preview of Hitoshi's LS theory. He has
> > worked out how the LS itself can be modeled consistently, but the model
> > needs to be extended with regard to the way LS observe each other.
> > Hitoshi's remarks about GR's field equations and the role of connections
> > is important in comsidering this.
> Some people are promiting the idea that realities are intersections
> of higher-dimensional realities. Interesting idea but I do not know how
> to realize it.
We are discussing it right here and now! LSs are "higher-dimensional
realities", their interactions are "intersections"! We just need to
genetralize our language to n-dimensions! People are trapped by their
ignorance in 2-dimensions. Ever read the work of P. D. Ouspensky?
PS, more being worked on. :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:36:57 JST