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

*Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:25:09 +0300 (EET DST)*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 492] Re: [time 485] Re: [time 478] Parallel translation, etc.. part IV"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 490] Re: [time 483] Re: [time 476] Parallel translation, etc...: part II"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 483] Re: [time 476] Parallel translation, etc...: part II"**Next in thread:**Stephen P. King: "[time 496] Re: [time 491]Forms, Entailment structures, intersections, etc."

Dar Matti,

Matti Pitkanen wrote:

[SPK]

*> > > >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?!
*

[MP]

*> > > This is a good question. Your point of view makes possible to avoid
*

*> > > dualism: observations contra world out there.
*

[SPK]

*> > Could you elaborate? I don't understand? I thought that I was
*

*> > saying that there is a duality, Level 2?!
*

[MP]

*> 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!

[MP]

I see LOGOS as wisdom existing there, objective realities.

You mean by LOGOS the cognitive

process (cascades generating selfs and essentially phenomenon of

subjective reality).

*> > 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.

[MP]

OK. I define qualities as red, green, etc.., as properties

of experiences, not properties of the world. You

obviously see them properties of the world. More generally,

Hume's law says that values are not in the world

since one cannot measure values. I agree, values relate to quantum jumps,

subjective reality not physical realities. What about values

in your approach?

[SPK]

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.

[MP] Agree.

[MP]

*> > > 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.
*

*> > > *********
*

[SPK]

*> > 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.
*

[MP]

*> 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...

[SPK]

*> > > > 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)...
*

*> > > >
*

[MP]

*> > > 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?
*

[SPK]

*> > 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!
*

[MP]

*> 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

interact directly..."

*> 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.)

[MP] This common surface is the 'real' reality behind p-adic realities

in TGD.

[SPK] 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!

[MP] Selves within us provide these simulations. Selves for

all kinds of objects we perceive either outside or inside our

body.

[SPK]

*> > 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.
*

[MP]

*> 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",

[MP] You are right.

[SPK]

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! :-(

snip

[SPK]

*> > 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!
*

[MP]

*> 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:

http://ssie.binghamton.edu/~pattee/

[MP] Mutual agreemens of associations would results in my framework

from the formation of abstractions: self containing unentangled

subselves experiences what it is to be average subself.

Quantum statistical determinism implies that these averages

tend to be more or less same: you 'tree' =about my 'tree'.

Question: who I am? Am I self or abstraction of subselves

of a larger self? What is Earth: is it really individual

Earth or abstraction about planets circling some average

star we call Sun?(;-)

*> 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.

[MP] You identify nondeterminism and nonpredictability. I regard

nondeterminism as real phenonenon having nothing to do with

predictability. Even very young childs can differentiate between living

creatures and nonliving objects: they certainly cannot predict the

behaviour of nonliving objects. This supports

that nonpredictability not= nondeterminism.

[SPK]

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. :-)

[MP] Objection! QM is NOT completely nondeterministic! Far from that.

It would be easy to model QM mechanically if this were the case.

Only discrete subset of the states is possible outcome in quantum jump:

this is what I think makes hopeless the simulation of QM

probabilistically.

*> > > Only some of its components commute at given time =constant section.
*

[SPK]

*> > Can you elaborate on this?
*

[MP]

*> 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!

[MP] I think that the basic problem is the concept of point like

particle: particles are not pointlike: they are small 3-surfaces, would

I say. When particle becomes very large it becomes the space in which

smaller particles reside (topological sum). This is really

big idea: particle and space containing it are only instances

of one and the same thing! Getting rid of a concept is always

a victory!

I am not too enthusiastic about Fisher information, too specific.

This I-J decomposition also leads to nonsensical consequences in TGD

framework. Signs do not come correctly.

I interpret Kahler action as a measure for the cognitive

degeneracy of spacetime surface. This interpretation involves

a hypothesis about what this degeneracy is: it is motivated

by thermodynamical analogy but I cannot prove this hypothesis.

[MP]

*> > > 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.
*

[SPK]

*> > 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.
*

[MP]

*> 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?

http://www.fourthway.org/

[MP] I have not. LS could be also 4-dimensional realities: their

intersections would correspond to the elementary particle horizons

at which spacetime metric is degenerate: much like

blackhole horizons. Always in pairs.

Best,

MP

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 492] Re: [time 485] Re: [time 478] Parallel translation, etc.. part IV"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 490] Re: [time 483] Re: [time 476] Parallel translation, etc...: part II"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 483] Re: [time 476] Parallel translation, etc...: part II"**Next in thread:**Stephen P. King: "[time 496] Re: [time 491]Forms, Entailment structures, intersections, etc."

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