[time 487] Re: [time 480] Parallel translation, etc...part VI (!)

Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Sat, 24 Jul 1999 19:53:23 -0400

Dear Matti,

        This is a marathon of thought! :-)

Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > Does this implicitly assume a unique set of measuring "tools"
> > > for all possible observers?
> > 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.

        This maybe relates to the Bremermann's Limit:
http://www.bestweb.net/~ca314159/BREMMANN.HTM You really need to read
Kosko's Information wave mechanics! I'll include it in the package...

> >"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.

        Yes, and I believe that this occurs for all observers "no matter where
or when"!

> > 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.

        YES! :-) The "distance" that is "crossed" in the quantum jump is
relatively null for the observer involved. Umm, the experiments being
down with quantum tunneling may give us falsifiability on this! It is
this notion that explains my initial discomfort with your wormholes

"First, we have discovered that photons which tunnel through a quantum
barrier can apparently travel faster than light (see "Measurement of the
Single-Photon Tunneling Time" by A. M. Steinberg, P. G. Kwiat, and R. Y.
Chiao, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 71, page 708; 1993). Because of the
uncertainty principle, the photon has a small but very real chance of
appearing suddenly on the far side of the barrier, through a quantum
effect (the 'tunnel effect') which would seem impossible according to
classical physics. The tunnel effect is so fast that it seems to occur
faster than light."

(Others are thinking of this!

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/~ndaniel1/qm_paper.html, )
> 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.
        Yes! WE need to look at this very carefully! I say that the forward
jumps ... -->x1 --> x2--> ...
are dual to "backward jumps" ... i2 <-- i1 <-- ... of logical
implication (following Pratt). It looks like this:

        ... -->x1 --> x2--> ... Time
                | |
        ... |g |h ...
                | |
        ... <--i2 <-- i1<-- ... Logic

 were g and h are infomorphic bisimulations...

> > 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!
> 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.

        That is why I am so happy to discuss these silly ideas of mine with
you! :-)
> 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.

        Exactly! :-) I have used the word "mapping" because I did not know of a
better one. It is bisimulation!
> Quantum nondeterminism implies that conscious logic is
> not sharp, it is erratic but extremely flexible.
        Yes, this is why I advocate the use of fuzzy logic. Probabilistic logic
works too, but it is not intuitive to me. :-(

> > 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.

        This is why we can not do a "Vulcan Mind Meld"! It would be impossible
to unentangle the two minds!
> 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!

        Yes, it is! Bohm has talked about this in his work...
> > > 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).

        Yes! :-) I just try to think about how each observation involves its
own lightcone of causality...

> 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.

        Well, again, I am saying that it is the experiences that are being

> > 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?

        YES! Existence is static, tenseless. Local actuality is a
bi-simulation... I perceive you by predicting your behavior in order to
act accordingly and you do the same back. Now, think of many observers
doing this!
> > 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.

        Huh, how do you conclude that?

> > 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.

        Indeed! But, it is helpful as a concept to start out with...
> > 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!
> > 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 subsystem 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 mapped 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.

        You are correct, my use of the idea of a mapping is a crutch. I am
learning how to communicate my mental pictures as I interact with you.
:-) It is the way that bisimulation works that lead me to use the notion
of mapping. Like Edelman's "re-entrant maps"


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