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

*Mon, 2 Aug 1999 07:57:24 +0300 (EET DST)*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 512] A new approach to Causality via Chu space residuation, Part 1"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 510] Re: [time 509] Observation models"**In reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 509] Re: [time 504] Observation models"

On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:

*> Dear Matti,
*

*>
*

*> I am working on a big post on Pratt's work. I'll shorten this one a
*

*> lot....
*

OK. I have been also working intensively: writing chapter about

self: I will tell about new ideas later. Just one especially interesting

idea now. I remember that you talked about sequences of observations

in earlier discussions. In the original 'cs is nothing but quantum jumps'

dogma, it assumed there is not subjective memory, genuine memory about

earlier quantum jumps.

Only yesterday I realized, that the introduction of self

as subsystem able to remain p-adically unentangled changes the situation.

A very attractive hypothesis for how subjective memory is realized,

emerges. I glue a short piece of text and after that a couple of comments.

****

The contents of consciousness are determined totally by the initial and

final states of the quantum jump. This has been the basic assumption of

TGD inspired theory of consciousness hitherto.

A heavy objection against this assumption

is that, since contents of consciousness are determined

by the initial and final state of the quantum jump, it is not possible

to have any memories about previous quantum jumps. One

could even argue that in this kind of universe it is not possible

to discover that there is series of quantum jumps.

There is a possible way out of this problem.

The ensemble of cognitive spacetime sheets performing quantum jumps

with time dependent average outcome makes in principle

possible to have memories about

earlier experiences by re-experiencing the thoughts generated

by them. Of course, only simulations are in question

and one could argue that this is not enough.

The proposed identification of self however forces

to reconsider this assumption.

Nothing precludes the possibility that a connected

series of subsequent quantum jumps performed by self

integrates to single conscious experience. This

hypothesis would provide

strong realization for the idea about continuous

streams of consciousness and realize self as an extended

object in subjective time.

The option would realize genuine memory with respect to

subjective time and make possible to remember something about

previous quantum jumps. The temporal integration

of the conscious experiences to single experience would

conform with the 'ontogeny repeats phylogeny' principle

in the sense that the integration would correspond to the

necessary generalization of 3-surface to association sequence consisting

of minimal number of spacelike 3-surfaces with timelike mutual

separations. Neurophysiological time quantum seems to be some fraction

of second and this would suggest that the duration of self

is typically of the same order and corresponds to short term

memory, or actually a hierarchy of short term memories.

Of course, the entanglement with larger selves with longer

duration with respect to subjective time would make

it possible to genuinely remember what happened in

quantum jumps, which really occurred, say in (subjective)

childhood.

Subjective memory would also make possible to understand

how concepts involving intentionality

could be realized in quantum framework (plans, desires,

imaginationn,..)

************

Some comments below on your questions.

*>
*

*> Matti Pitkanen wrote:
*

*> snip
*

*> [SPK]
*

*> > > But is it not true that symbols are information when we think of them
*

*> > > as having a "meaning" but are material configurations when we think of
*

*> > > quantities such as charge, mass, spin, etc. ? A robot has all of its
*

*> > > behavior predetermined, it has not free-will!
*

*> [MP]
*

*> > I would say that symbols are more: they are conscious subselves
*

*> > representing someting (in external world). Selves as robots
*

*> > is of course the great failure of AI. The capture of basic
*

*> > hierarchical structures of cognitive processing and mechnization
*

*> > of logical thinking is its victory and also quantum theories
*

*> > of cs must be able to reproduce this part of computationalism
*

*> > (neuroscience and cognitive psychology rely strongly on computational
*

*> > approach).
*

*>
*

*> Have you read Howard Pattee's papers?
*

*> http://ssie.binghamton.edu/~pattee/ I think that you would find them
*

*> interesting! :-)
*

*>
*

I am not sure. I will look.

*>
*

*> > The key question is: is classical theory only approximation
*

*> > of quantum theory or essential part of it. In standard physics
*

*> > answer is 'only approximation', in TGD the answer is 'essential
*

*> > part of it'. That TGD answer is possible relates directly to
*

*> > the hypothesis that spacetimes are 4-surfaces. This
*

*> > hypothesis also solves the energy problem of GRT.
*

*>
*

*> Why can't we just think of classical theory as a useful model for
*

*> dealing with situations where velocities and energies are low? It is
*

*> just a way of thinking about the world, it is not "the world"!
*

*>
*

One must be careful with what one means by classical theory: I mean

the concept of spacetime. What I mean that classical theory assigns to

3-surface unique 4-surface and that Dirac equation for

the induced spinors is satisfied. I do not mean

Newtonian mechanics for electron nor neglect of quantum effects.

I believe that spacetime, or more precisely quantum

state as superposition of

macroscopically equivalent spacetimes is necessary concept.

We formulate every physical experiment using this concept

and our everyday thinking relies on it.

And then purely mathematical reason for classicality: in quantum TGD mere

General Coordinate Invariance forces the concept of classical spacetime:

Diff^4 must have spacetime surface to act on.

It is very difficult to understand

why stationary phase approximation of GRT could explain

the emergene of classcal spacetime at the level of cs experience.

World would be only effectively classical in the sense that

the transition amplitudes would be expressed as perturbation

theory around classical spacetime.

Secondly, stationary phase approximation

of GRT does not even work: one must Euclidize in attempt of trying to get

some sense to the formulas and the connection with the world

of obsevations is totally lost.

*> [MP]
*

*> > > > Yes. Let me see this from my viewpoint. I have definition of self as
*

*> > > > quantum subsystem: the geometric definition
*

*> > > > underlies it. The event horizons associated with wormholes (metric
*

*> > > > determinant vanishes since metric changes from 1-1-1-1 to -1-1-1-1
*

*> > > > signature are natural boundaries of selves.
*

*> [SPK]
*

*> > > I do not understand your thinking here. How do you know that it is a
*

*> > > metric chance involved in the boundary of a self?
*

*> [MP]
*

*> > The surface at which signature changes is natural candidate
*

*> > for a boundary of self. All what remains inside boundary forms kind of
*

*> > causal closure *classically*: geodesics do not lead out.
*

*>
*

*> Like an event horizon of a black-hole?
*

*>
*

Much like this.

Best,

MP

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 512] A new approach to Causality via Chu space residuation, Part 1"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 510] Re: [time 509] Observation models"**In reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 509] Re: [time 504] Observation models"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:28 JST
*