[time 550] Re: [time 548] Re: [time 547] metaphors and tacit notions

Matti Pitkanen (matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi)
Mon, 16 Aug 1999 19:02:20 +0300 (EET DST)

On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:

> Dear Hitoshi,
> Umm, I am concerned that an emotional conflict over semantics is
> occurring. :-( In Matti's post, [time 537], he writes:
> "And at the top there is entire Universe, God, who subjectively
> remembers
> everything about the infinitely many quantum jumps
> already occurred and whose contents of consciousness is determined by
> infinite series of abstractions provided by infinite number
> of subselves providing symbolic representations for what is
> there. Abstraction is wonderful thing: the sins of average
> self are abstracted and averaged for so many times that God probably
> cannot decide who did it. Selves at various levels can occasionally get
> enlightened by entanglement, which perhaps makes possible communication
> between various levels of the hierarchy."
> I have a problem with this as it tacitly implies that the Universe, the
> Totality of Existence, has "a will of its own". As I understand "bound
> states" within your theory, I do not see how Matti's idea can explicitly
> be realized. But I do see that is a metaphor, and suggest that we
> interpret it as such.

We should be careful here. We are after all talking about God(;-)! Every
self is composite of cognitive and material spacetime sheets. God
is exception: God is entire geometrical universe. One might perhaps say
that God just observes and forms ultimate abstraction and lesser beings
have moments of free will.

Of course, we have different philosophies. From previous discussions I
have learned that Hitoshi assumes that Universe
is something absolute, which does not change. I assume that
objective reality=quantum history changes in every quantum jump.
But I do see any reason for why this should trouble us!

Part of this is also semantics. If I define 'that-which-exists' as
the set of all possible quantum histories, we can agree: conscious
experiences are give kaleidcopic views from 'that-which-is'.

> We are at very early stages of understanding the subtleties of your
> formal theory. I am sure that all of us, as interested in Truth, can put
> aside our cultural assumptions and work together.


> Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> >
> > Dear Matti,
> snip
> > > On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Matti,
> > > >
> > > > Matti, do you understand Japanese or/and Asian mind?
> [MP]
> > > Well, you could answer this question best!
> >
> > My question should not be treated lightly like this. It is related
> > with the idea of my theory that you do not understand.
> We need to be patient and understand that each of us has a unique
> perspective of the Universe and so has knowledge unavailable to any
> other.
> Onward,
> Stephen

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