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

*Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:50:55 +0300 (EET DST)*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 546] Re: [time 544] Re: [time 542] Fermions & Bosons & Supersymmetry"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 544] Re: [time 542] Fermions & Bosons"**Next in thread:**Stephen P. King: "[time 551] Re: [time 535]Modeling change with nonstandard numbers"

Here are the bibliodata you asked below.

Gerard O'Brien & Jon Opie, A connectionist theory of phenomenal experience

http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/bbs/Archive/bbs.obrien.html

It can be found from the page of Chalmers

http://ling.ucsc.edu/~chalmers/mind.html

which contains all kinds of interesting material.

I will reply later to the rest of posting. Computer has been down for

several days and I am in rather irritated state of mind! Must calm down

first!

Best,

MP

On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:

*> Dear Matti and Friends,
*

*>
*

*> Matti Pitkanen wrote:
*

*> >
*

*> > On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
*

*> snip
*

*> [SPK]
*

*> > > I see "structure" or pattern recognition as a general type of
*

*> > > bisimulation. I believe that this is modeled by Pratt then he discusses
*

*> > > Chu spaces with K > 2 values. For K = 2, we have a binary situation like
*

*> > > you ask: "familiar" or "unfamiliar", but this is easily seen to be vague
*

*> > > as it tacitly assumes an absolute "standard" to distinguish the two...
*

*> > > He proposes that QM can be represented by the behavior of Chu_K = C (C
*

*> > > being the set of complex numbers)...
*

*> [MP]
*

*> > Interesting situation occurs when binary numbers Z_2 are replaced
*

*> > with G(p,1): finite field with p elements. What one obtains
*

*> > by the construction taking it to infinite is p-adic numbers with
*

*> > norm not larger than one: also p-adic numbers infinite as
*

*> > ordinary integers are included. Binary case would give 2-adics.
*

*> > What differentiates between this construction and construction of surreals
*

*> > is presumably that p-adic topology is introduced.
*

*> [SPK]
*

*> > > I think that the Pinary tree is a better model since it captures
*

*> > > phylogenetic relations that a binary tree can not! Thus the "history" of
*

*> > > a particular player has an effect on the possible moves it will make in
*

*> > > a particular game... We skew (?)or weigh the moves as a function of the
*

*> > > number of times that a particular move was successful for that player!?
*

*> > > Since Chu spaces represent both the games and the players of the games,
*

*> > > we can identify a player with a set of games and a game by an antiset of
*

*> > > players. (I think, I may be misinterpreting Pratt!?)
*

*>
*

*> BTW, a game between two players (chu spaces) A and B is defined by the
*

*> tensor product of A and B, which can be considered as a player of a
*

*> "bigger" game... See pg. 5,6 of ratmech.ps
*

*>
*

*> snip
*

*> [SPK]
*

*> > > You make a very good point here, but I believe that Dennett is mistakes
*

*> > > in thinking that the difference between, say "files of numbers" and the
*

*> > > "mechanism of the reading head" are only differences in *degree* and
*

*> > > that this is all there is to be said of the situation. If we are
*

*> > > strictly talking about the information content of the physical
*

*> > > embodiments of these informational structures, we can see that the
*

*> > > difference in only in degree, but Dennett's material monism blinds him
*

*> > > to the categorical difference in *kind* that exists between the "mental
*

*> > > object" (information about) A* and the physical object A.
*

*> [MP]
*

*> > Yes, I understand you point.
*

*> [MP]
*

*> > > > Isn't the situation same in physics? To take example relating to previous
*

*> > > > discussions. Could it be that spacetime geometry is tacit information?
*

*> > > > The dynamics of spacetime surface defined Kahler action as dynamical
*

*> > > > principle is tacit information not allowing representation in terms
*

*> > > > of LS interactions: simply because it defines these interactions!?
*

*> > > > Same would apply to unitary time evolution U: it would also represent
*

*> > > > 'raw physics'. Explicit (DNA, short term memory?) and potentially
*

*> > > > explicit (motor program in my brain realized as cascades of selves, long
*

*> > > > term memory realized in terms of self hierachy and communication between
*

*> > > > levels of hierarchy?) information would emerge only at the level when
*

*> > > > selves emerge.
*

*> [SPK]
*

*> > > Given my comment above, I agree with you here! :-) (Does Dennett allow
*

*> > > for "implicit" as the complement of "explicit"? I have read his book,
*

*> > > but I can't remember...)
*

*> [MP]
*

*> > Probably: I think he divided implicit to potentially explicit and tacit.
*

*> > (I read a paper about implicit learning yesterday and found the
*

*> > definitions there).
*

*>
*

*> Could you send me the bibliodata on it?
*

*>
*

*> [SPK]
*

*> > > In Hitoshi's LS theory, the "outsides" of LS are "physical" and the
*

*> > > "insides" are "mental", I think!? We could categorize the information
*

*> > > involved in the external behavior of LS in the way you describe here.
*

*> > > :-)
*

*> [MP]
*

*> > I read the rathmech in train and I think I understand the general
*

*> > idea and philosophy. Although the basic philosophy is quite different
*

*> > from my stubborn beliefs, I find the mathematical idea beautiful. I hope
*

*> > I could apply it in my own thought constructions. To put
*

*> > it mildly, I am still far from any concrete model for cognitive
*

*> > representations: in any case, cognitive spacetime sheets and material
*

*> > spacetime sheets could replace mind and matter in TGD framework.
*

*> > Perhaps the models provided by cognitive spacetime sheets for the
*

*> > behaviour of material ones could be formulated in terms of
*

*> > Chu pair somehow defined by cognitive and material spacetime sheet forming
*

*> > self and K valued mapping |= would characterize the simulation
*

*> > provided by cognitive spacetime sheet for the behaviour of material
*

*> > one. Something like this...
*

*>
*

*> I have thought of your "cognitive and material spacetime sheets" as
*

*> representable by Chu spaces! :-) The |= can be interpreted as the
*

*> "payoff matrix of a von-Neumann-Morganstern two-person game"; it is a
*

*> matrix whose entries range over the values of K... How this applies to
*

*> your thought here I am not sure... The "self" is a "player" of the
*

*> "information acquisition game" that I see bisimulation to be.
*

*>
*

*> > What troubles me that that the causation from mental to material
*

*> > was replaced by a K-valued function. And interpretation
*

*> > of the values of |= as complex time or logical value.
*

*> > If K=Z_2 this everything is ok but
*

*> > K=C? I did not quite understand the construction of left and
*

*> > right residuations in case of QM.
*

*> > I understood right residuation in general case.
*

*>
*

*> No, causation is not "replaced by a K-valued function", as I understand
*

*> it, it is a matrix of relations. Look at the 4th paragraph on pg. 3, 4th
*

*> paragraph of page 6, 3rd & 6th paragraph of pg. 8, 8th paragraph of pg.
*

*> 9 of ratmech.ps, for various discussions of causality.
*

*> The last reference is particularly telling: "...we find that two
*

*> events, or two states, communicate with each other by interrogating
*

*> *all* entities of the opposite type. Thus event a deduces that it
*

*> precedes event b not by broaching the matter with b directly, but
*

*> instead by consulting the record of every state to see if there is any
*

*> state volunteering a counterexample. When none is found, the precedence
*

*> is established. Conversely when a Chu space is in state x and desires to
*

*> pass to state y, it inquires as to whether this would undo any event
*

*> that has already occurred. If not then the transition is allowed."
*

*> I am arguing that Pratt's idealized definition, presented here, can be
*

*> weakened to take into account computational error, entropy and the
*

*> "duration" or "granularity" of a transition, which is equivalent to your
*

*> q-jump. I am have only philosophical arguments and not mathematical ones
*

*> so I beg your patience and ask for your help to formalize the idea.
*

*> (Hint: entropy is generated in computing by erasing memory)
*

*> I think that we need to also read
*

*> http://boole.stanford.edu/chuguide.html#ph94 to see more of Pratt's
*

*> ideas of how the construction works for QM. He does identify, on pg. 10
*

*> of ratmech.ps, right residuation with the inner product of a "mixed
*

*> state" and left residuation with the outer product.
*

*>
*

*> > Chu spaces involve the
*

*> > assumption about *given* spaces A and X: isn't this assumption
*

*> > very similar to the assumption 'spacetimes are 4-surfaces
*

*> > of 8-dimensional H', which assumption in turn induces
*

*> > the concept of configuration space and its spinor structure
*

*> > crucial for quantum theory?
*

*>
*

*> I am not sure that we could really say "*given*", remember that there
*

*> is no notion of absolute initiality (or finality) of the spaces A and X,
*

*> they are constructed by constructions which are constructed themselves.
*

*> We are no longer using the naive classical notion that there is an
*

*> absolute "beginning" to a space. This notion can be see to derive from
*

*> the way that observations ("results of information acquisition games" in
*

*> Frieden's thinking and "the tensor product of Chu spaces" representing
*

*> observers in Pratt's thinking). An observation is a finite sampling,
*

*> like Robert Fung's "bucket" that scoops up a finite distribution of
*

*> spectra. Umm, I am not clearheaded right now, I'll try to elaborate more
*

*> on this some other time.
*

*>
*

*> Onward,
*

*>
*

*> Stephen
*

*>
*

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 546] Re: [time 544] Re: [time 542] Fermions & Bosons & Supersymmetry"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 544] Re: [time 542] Fermions & Bosons"**Next in thread:**Stephen P. King: "[time 551] Re: [time 535]Modeling change with nonstandard numbers"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:29 JST
*