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

*Fri, 20 Aug 1999 20:12:19 +0300 (EET DST)*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 583] Reply to Stephen about geometric time, subjective time, etc..: part II"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 581] Re: [time 575] Time and dualism"**Next in thread:**Stephen P. King: "[time 591] Re: [time 582] Reply to Stephen about geometric time, subjective time etc.: partI"

Dear Stephen,

I have snipped a lot to make mail shorter.

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:

*> Dear Matti,
*

*>
*

*> This response was not written chronologically from beginning to
*

end...

*> I try to think and revise as can. :-)
*

*>
*

*> Matti Pitkanen wrote:
*

*> >
*

*> > On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
*

*> snip
*

*> [SPK]
*

*> > > Have you read Stuart Kauffman and Lee Smolin, "A possible
*

solution for

*> > > the problem of time in quantum cosmology,"
*

*> > > http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin/smolin_p2.html,
*

gr-qc/9703026)

*> > > and Hitoshi's response? My thinking about "geometric time" is very
*

*> > > reflected in Smolin & Kauffman's article, particularly
*

*> > > http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin/smolin_p3.html.
*

*> [MP]
*

*> > No.
*

[SPK]

*> If you get a change, could you? It would help us to understand
*

each

*> other! :-)
*

[MP] Of course, I will look the paper. In fact, it might be that I have

perhaps read it.

*>
*

*> [SPK]
*

*> > > It is impossible
*

*> > > for there to exist a clock external to the configuration space and
*

thus

*> > > it is impossible to associate any particular "time" or history
*

ordering.

*> [MP]
*

*> > Geometric clock is impossible and is not even needed. Subjective
*

clocks

*> > are needed. I have suggested in 'Self and Binding'
*

*> > (http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/selfbind.html) a model
*

*> > of clock as a subself waking up periodically. The model explains
*

*> > why subjectively experienced time runs slowly when we get bored,
*

*> > why time disappears totally in whole-body consciousness (there is
*

*> > no subselves awake and hence no clock and hence no time!), what might
*

be

*> > involved in those states of mind in which time stops (for instance,
*

*> > you are in car accident: by the way, there is a book of Oliver Sacks
*

*> > telling from persons who lived in this state for decades:'Man who
*

*> > mistook his wife for his hat').
*

*>
*

[SPK]

*> Ok, what Hitoshi and I are contending is that if it is impossible
*

to

*> define a clock, there is no such quantity as time! You said: "Geometric
*

*> clock is impossible and is not even needed.", thus the notion of a
*

*> "geometric time" is meaningless! Unless we are referring to the M^4-
*

*> past light cone, them I agree with you...
*

*>
*

[MP]

Perhaps I formulated inaccurately what I wanted to say. What I wanted to

say that manifold measuring the values of its own coordinates is

conceptual impossibility. Already by general coordinate invariance: which

would be the preferred coordinates which manifold measures. Clock

is a concept which cannot be reduced to Riemann geometry, which

happily exists without clocks. The concept of clock involves the

concept of quantum jump and self: theory of consciousness.

*> [MP]
*

*> > Objective/geometric time is logical contradiction if you require it
*

to

*> > have the properties of subjective time (arrow, 'clockability',
*

*> > irreversibelity). This requirement is perfectly natural if you
*

*> > dualistically insist that universe is computer in the sense that its
*

*> > hardware is dual to its software. I however assume that only geometric
*

and

*> > informational time development correspond to the dynamics of reading
*

*> > head of Turing machine and the problem disappears.
*

*>
*

[SPK]

*> If "geometric time" does not have the qualities of "[an] arrow,
*

*> 'clockability, [and] irreversibility", what qualities does it have that
*

*> allow us to think of it as time? I really don't understand! :-( The
*

*> "dynamics of reading [writing] of the Turing [machine] head", for me,
*

*> speaks to the interaction of matter and information; it is the
*

*> operations of record generation that are an essential aspect of any
*

*> observation. H. H. Pattee's work gets into the specifics of this.
*

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

*>
*

[MP] I think that Riemann geometry abstracts all the needed properties

of geometric time. There is no essential difference between time and

space. Clockability and irreversibility are properties of subjective time.

Psychological time inherits its values from geometric time and

its irreversibelity and clockability from subjective time.

Psychological time is hybrid of these two times.

*> [MP]
*

*> > I think we can say something about emotions. Many
*

*> > of them involve comparison of what was expected to happen and what
*

*> > happened. This differentiates them from pure sensory experiences.
*

*> > By the way, this is the reason why computationalism is able to
*

*> > model intentional things like desire and goal in brute manner.
*

*> > Emotional intellect is now realized to be decisively
*

*> > important for survival. Persons who have only rational intellect
*

*> > are no values are victims of combinatorial explosion! Think
*

*> > about person busily computing whether to kill or not to kill the
*

person

*> > sitting nearest in the bus.
*

*>
*

[SPK]

*> I really don't understand how you relate emotions to "geometrical
*

*> time".
*

[MP]

The point is that conscious experiences are determined by initial

and final quantum histories and classically they correspond to

spacetime surfaces. This implies that sensory experiences involve

expectation of what occurred and occurs: intuition, intentionality.

[SPK]

*> From what the neurophysicists tell us, emotions involve
*

*> variations in neurotransmitters and seem to involve specific areas of
*

*> the brain, the limbic system (I think). Emotion seem to be "valuations"
*

*> that weigh sense impressions in the short term memory, associated with
*

*> the limbic system, in a way that looks like the creation of a basis and
*

*> inner product for vectors.
*

[MP]

Emotions like disappointment, relief, etc... result from comparisons

of what happened and what was expected to happen. Intentionality is

essential. Computationalist might perhaps model limbic system as

a set of flags: the value of flat is 1 for expected=actually occurred and

0

for expected not= actually occurred. The distribution of flags

would determine the emotion. I believe that this picture, although

extremely simplified, has some truth in it.

It could be that neurotransmitters and hormones just

communicate the values of flag variables and cause the most primitive

emotions like rage and fear from comparison of single bit

to expected value of the bit.

[SPK]

*> Emotions are usually not "chosen", that would require the ability
*

to

*> choose the valuation and it appears to be out of the reach of the
*

*> awareness. Persons are very rarely "aware of themselves being aware".
*

*> This takes a lot of effort!
*

[MP]

This is certainly true. Basic objection against quantum jump as moment

of consciousness was that sensory experiences and emotions do not involve

conscious selection. The concept of self solved the problem. Although

invidividual quantum jump is nondeterministic, the fact that

experience is integrated from all quantum jumps after wake-up of

self (typically 10^40 for self of age of one second!) brings

in quantum statistical determinism. The volitions associated

with the selection of density matrix eigenstate averages out in

the experience which is 'sum' over all these experiences.

Only the volition related with the selection

between degenerate absolute minima of Kaehler action (classical

nondeterminism) remains.

*> [MP]
*

*> > I meant 'dynamical in sense of classical physics' in sense of
*

classical

*> > field theory: classical physics is specified by the time evolution
*

*> > of induced metric (gravitational field) and induced spinor connection
*

*> > (classical electroweak fields) and classical color field.
*

*>
*

*> Huh? I had the impression that spinors and "color" (in QED and
*

QCD) are

*> purely quantum, e.g., having no classical version... I am confused!
*

*>
*

[MP] You are quite right. TGD is however not QED or QCD. One of

the basic differences between TGD and standard model is that TGD

predicts the existence of classical electroweak gauge fields and

classical color fields. Of course also quantum fields are predicted: TGD

predicts practically same world in elementary particle length scales

(there are also new physics effects). Situation changes at very low

energies. The possibility of classical Z0 and color fields is

crucially important difference and implies new effects at low energies.

Consider first what the new effects related to weak interactions are.

a) Neutrino physics at eV energy range changes dramatically since

Z^0 long range force provides long range interaction between neutrinos.

The requirements that parity breaking effects in hadronic, nuclear and

atomic physics are (extremely) small, that Z^0 force does not explode

condensed matter, and the experimental data about neutrino mass squared

differences, fix the scenario completely.

Quarks must feed their Z0 gauge fluxes to same

spacetime sheet at which neutrinos topologically condense. This

corresponds to the length scale of epithelial sheets from the recent

constraints on neutrino mass (p=about 2^k, k=169=13^2).

b) Chirality selection, complete mystery in standard physics context,

finds an elegant explanation in terms of classical Z^0 force, which

has chiral coupling to fermions and hence breaks parity.

c) Solar neutrino puzzle finds explanation in terms of dispersion

caused by solar and terrestial Z0 magnetic fields on neutrino beam

coming from the solar core. In particular, the observed correlation

of solar neutrino intensity with solar spot activity and magnetic

(actually Z0 magnetic) fields of Earth finds explanation. Also the fact,

the intensity of solar neutrinos is different in Kamiokande and in

Homestake can be understood.

d) Tritium beta decay anomaly and its variation with period

of year (physics of planet system must be somehow involved!)

finds also explation in terms of classical Z0 force.

e) For roughly year ago came also report from NASA telling

that the acceleration of space crafts in outer space

is not quite what it should be. Classical Z0 force leads

to an explanation of the effect.

f) Just week ago I learned from labotory scale effect

in which spinning disk in accelerated rotation induces

rotation of the second disk above it in oppposite direction.

Explanation in terms of Faraday induction associated

with Z0 field suggests itself. The time varying Z^0 magnetic

field created by the rotating disk generates Z0 electromotive force.

The field lines of induced Z^0 electric field rotate along the axis of

Z^0 magnetic field and create torque forcing the second disk

to rotate in opposite direction (from minimization of Maxwell

action).

Classical color fields accompanying classical em fields

are second prediction of TGD.

In http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka I have proposed a model

of color vision in which quark color directly corresponds to

the color of color vision.

The basic observation came from mathematician Barbara Shipman who

discovered that the model for honeybee dance leads to a connection with

flag manifold SU(3)/U(1)xU(1) associated with color group: as

if quarks might have something to do with how honeybees see

the world!

I did not take seriously the quark hypothesis first but it indeed seems

that quarks could be involved: the reason is that quarks feed

their Z0 charges to the spacetime sheet corresponding

to epithelial sheets since neutrino Z0 charge is there

and must be neutralized in order to avoid Z^0 explosion.

Hence quarks couple directly to classical

color fields: this generates small color magnetic polarization

at the level of nucleons (protons and neutrons): proton and neutron

change very little but this is enough. Epithelial sheets are

the p-adic level where I have located our consciousness!

Therefore the mysterious quarks, which we have believed to be

completely outside of the realm of sensory experience make possible our

color vision! Neutrinos, which we have believed to be completely elusive

particles in turn make our thinking and hearing possible. Neutrinos

are indeed ideal candidates for realizing thoughts since

dissipation is practically completely absent since coupling to

Z0 quanta is extremely weak (they are extremely massive).

Classical Z0 force makes possible the coding of sound oscillations

to thoughts and coding of sounds to auditory experiences (oscillating

nuclei generate oscillating Z^0 fields which couple to neutrinos).

[MP]

*> > Besides this the topological inhomogenities representing particles
*

*> > (CP_2 type extremals) and cosmic strings (galaxies) are present.
*

*>
*

*> Umm, I am skeptical of the "cosmic strings"... I find the plasma
*

*> physics model of galaxies to be more tenable, at least it is testable in
*

*> the laboratory!
*

*>
*

[MP] I cannot say anything about this because I do not know

the model but I am sceptic as always(;-).

*> > 'Geodesics are invertible' requirement is based
*

*> > on the idealization based on the point particle limit: in TGD
*

*> > framework geodesics would give approximate description for cm mass
*

*> > motion of em neutral spacetime sheets glued to larger spacetime sheets
*

and

*> > idealized to points. Actually these spacetime sheets can get glued
*

*> > and decay: this would correspond to Feynmann diagrams describing
*

*> > particle emission and absorption (CP_2 extremals). All this is
*

*> > 'classical physics' in TGD framework.
*

*>
*

[SPK]

*> Interesting, this picture looks similar to Hitoshi's, except for
*

the

*> details about CP_2 extremals and "em neutral spacetime sheets"... In
*

*> Hitoshi's model all "direct" observations give classical situations, QM
*

*> behavior can only be inferred from "corrections". This corresponds to
*

*> your statement that the self can not be modeled, we can only infer its
*

*> properties, bounds, etc. ...
*

*>
*

[MP]

Yes. The Feynmann diagrammatics has direct topological counterpart.

Lines of Feynmann diagrams are thickened to 4-manifolds.

*> [SPK]
*

*> > > This makes the dynamics
*

*> > > of such incapable of manifesting time! See M. C. Mackey's Time's
*

Arrow:

*> > > The Origin of Thermodynamic Behavior for the proof.
*

*> [MP]
*

*> > This proof is based on identification of geometric time with
*

subjective

*> > time, which is what standard physics does. But in TGD situation is
*

*> > completely different. Subjective time measured
*

*> > by quantum jumps has in principle nothing to do with geometric time.
*

*> > Subjective time is irreversible, geometric time is not.
*

*> > In statistical sense click of subjective clock corresponds to
*

*> > 10^4 Planck times of geometric time but only in statistical sense.
*

*>
*

[SPK]

*> No! Mackey works from a reinterpretation of thermodynamics based
*

on

*> "densities".
*

[MP] I would bet that Mackey bases his approach on standard concept

of time, unless he *explicitely states that this is not the case*.

Of course I cannot be sure.

*> It occurs to me that there is something strange about your
*

*> definition of "subjective time"! Since you associate q-jumps with, what
*

*> I would call "moments of consciousness" (MC), the observer associated
*

*> with a particular poset of q-jumps can not separate one MC from another!
*

*> In other words, an observer will never be aware of its own clock's
*

*> reading directly.
*

[MP]

Ability to measure time with accuracy of 10^(-40) seconds would require

quite a lot of intelligence(;-). System should also be able to form the

concept of time, etc... Only experience of passing of time

and short term memory is involved at basic level.

The clock reading comes from sensory observations (clock in the wall) and

subjective memory telling that the pointer indeed moves. Subjective memory

made possible by self concept is crucial for this.

[SPK]

*> Observers get around this by making records of events
*

*> that are observed and the recordings are arranged in posets, thus the
*

*> observer can infer its "clocking rate", but it can not observe it
*

*> directly. This is directly related to an observer's inability to
*

*> directly observe itself. "I can only see a reflection of my face, not my
*

*> face it self."
*

*>
*

[MP]

In TGD framework situation is different. I experience my subselves

as thoughs, sensory experiences, mental images. An example

of clocklike phenomenon are periodical after (mental) images:

subselves waking up periodically. Also we are mental images

of higher level selves waking up periodically. Also particle

physics community is mental image of a higher level self waking

up periodically. I hope I knew when it does this next time.

*> > Besides this, every cognitive spacetime sheet has its own
*

*> > subjective time. Cognitive spacetime sheets are the counterparts of
*

clocks

*> > associated with LS:s. Geometric spacetime is full of cognitive
*

*> > spacetime sheets, from Big Bang to infinite future, and each is
*

measuring

*> > time consciously! Life is 4-dimensional phenomenon: entire spacetime
*

*> > is alive at this subjective now, not only this snapshot of cosmic
*

time,

*> > this is dramatic deviation from standard view.
*

*>
*

*> Yes! Just as LSs each have their own "subjective time", but this,
*

as I

*> just explained, is an action, a clocking action. Each LS, or cognitive
*

*> spacetime sheet in you model, has its own "measure of change". If there
*

*> is no change in a system, e.g. it is static, it was neither a time
*

*> associated nor the ability to observe change!
*

OK. Here we agree.

*>
*

*> [SPK]
*

*> > > You say that the
*

*> > > q-jump is, in effect, an alteration of X^4's "quantum average. Ok,
*

how

*> > > is this an observable? Where is the "change" coming from?
*

*> [MP]
*

*> > Dissipation is one signature. Fundamental physics predicts reversible
*

*> > world. World is however irreversible. This forces to introduce
*

*> > besides reversible World I the not so beautiful World II.
*

*> > In TGD World II is envelope for the sequence of reversible World
*

*> > I:s. For instance, an interval of one second about World II is
*

*> > like envelope for 10^40 curves representing World I:s.
*

*>
*

*> Can you isolate why "Fundamental physics predicts reversible
*

world"? Is

*> it because of the use of infinitesimal calculus and the association of
*

*> "time" to an absolute external parameter of change?
*

[MP] The basic reason is that fundamental physics relies on variational

principles: there is no other way to formulate quantum theory. One

cannot formulate the dynamics of dissipative systems in terms

of variational principles. Quantum theory of dissipative systems

simply does not make sense: parameters characterizing dissipation

are results of quantum calculations relying on quantum statistical

determinism and quantum measurement theory, which goes

outside the Schrodinger equation. What one typically does is to

calculate reaction rates using reversible quantum physics and then use

Boltzman equations and alike to calculate various parameters

characterizing irreversibility and then to replace the reversible world

with irreversible one. Ugly!

[SPK]

*> Mackey conclusively
*

*> proves that a reversible world is NOT the world that we experience.
*

[MP] Certaily this is the case in standard physics picture and Mackey does

good work. The problem is however that standard physics picture

about time is tragically wrong and forces to schitzophrenic situation

caused by the two worlds. I would say that the world or our experiences

is 'envelope' for the sequence of reversible worlds. One reversible world

per 10^(-40) seconds. Envelope is certainly not reversible

since time development by quantum jumps is not reversible.

[SPK]

*> If it has any reality, it is solely in our minds! I have issues with
*

*> the whole Platonic Ideals notion! The idea that there exists a static
*

*> realm of pure qualities (and quantities, for mathematics!) seems to be
*

*> at odds with both thermodynamics and QM!
*

[MP] QM in its present form!

[SPK]

*> Umm, I find Jerome Rothstein's ideas helpful!
*

*> http://204.240.36.10/radobs/vol1no2/life.htm and my paper
*

*> (http://members.home.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/life.html)
*

*> I need more information to understand you World I and II
*

concepts...

*>
*

*> > Second signature is the prediction that also geometric past changes
*

*> > in quantum jumps between quantum histories. The experiments of Libet,
*

*> > Kornhuber and recent experiments of Radin and Bierman, in which
*

*> > time direction of causality seems to change, find nice
*

*> > explanation in this framework. For instance, when person decides
*

*> > to raise his finger, EEG activity in brain starts before the person
*

*> > raises the finger. What happens that person jumps to new history in
*

*> > which EEG activity (no quantum jumps!) starts before the decision.
*

*>
*

*> It look to me that what is changed in a q-jump is the
*

*> information/material configuration of the LS. The LS, as an observer,
*

*> could imagine that there is an actual one-to-one isomorphism between its
*

*> internal configuration that encodes its history dependent memory and
*

*> some "external" space-time, but this is only an illusion. Your point
*

*> about Libbet et al's experiments seems to support Pratt's dictum
*

*> "cognito, ergo eram" (I think, therefore I has").
*

*> We can model "geometric time" as the time that multiple observers
*

can

*> communicate consistently to each other about, and that boils down to
*

*> cross-entropy or overlapping in their subjective histories and thus
*

*> their clockings.
*

[MP] I would rather talk about psychological time and selves as clocks

for this and leave geometric time to the Platonic realm where it

belongs(;-)!

*> [SPK]
*

*> > > The problem is that it is impossible to define change "from
*

within" a

*> > > static system or its spaces. I get around this by showing that
*

subsets

*> > > of a totality that is static are not necessarily static, so long as
*

the

*> > > totality is unknowable (and/or undecidable, see Smolin's comment!),
*

e.g.

*> > > that the whole can not be mapped uniquely to any particular subset
*

in a

*> > > constructable in finite time manner. Both Hitoshi and Mackey have
*

proven

*> > > theorems that show similar concepts to this!
*

*> [MP]
*

*> > You are probably right: the measurement paradox of quantum theory is
*

*> > example of what you claim. But we have different assumptions. You
*

assume

*> > that entire system is static. I assume quantum jump: this is the
*

change!

*> > Quantum jump does not occur within the world: it replaces entire world
*

*> > with a new one!
*

*>
*

[SPK]

*> Sure, but one observer's "entire world" is not necessarily every
*

*> observers world!
*

*> It is consistent for there to exist "entire worlds"
*

*> that have different "physical constants" and the observers of them would
*

*> be unable to communicate effectively with us. It seems that we both
*

*> agree that observation is change. I agree with your claim that a q-jump
*

*> "replaces entire world with a new one". I am only saying that the
*

*> Universe, the totality of Existence, is static. We are never aware of
*

*> it. All q-jump computations are only mappings or identifications between
*

*> subsets of the Universe. Hitoshi's definition of time uncertainty gets
*

*> into the details of this...
*

*>
*

[MP]

How decisive this assumption about total world as static and unchanging

is for Hitoshi's approach? Does it appear in any proof or prediction?

*> >
*

*> > This would require visual thinking: words are practically useless.
*

*> > There are two-dimensional illustrations about cognitive spacetime
*

sheets

*> > on my homepage. (http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/illuab.html,
*

I

*> > think)
*

*>
*

*> I found it: http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/illua.html
*

Umm,

*> looking at it, it struck me that you say "There is rather precise
*

*> metaphor making possible to understand the concept of induced gauge
*

*> field intuitively. The shadow (projection!) of a nondynamical solid
*

*> object ( < --> metric and spinor connection of H) with time-independent
*

*> size and shape to a surface (<--> 3-surface) changing its size and shape
*

*> is dynamical." I agree, but, as my friend Al asks, *what is altering
*

*> the object such that the shadow can change*?
*

[MP]

Object=the geometry of imbedding space does not change. 3-surface moves

and changes its shape and size. The shadow (literally projection) of

fixed object (imbedding space metric, spinor connection,..) on 3-surface

changes. This has nothing to do with quantum jumps: it is classical

dynamics dictated by Kaehler action. If you look your shadow on moving

object it changes its shape although you do not move.

*> I see interactions are
*

*> driving q-jumps which alter what is projected. This is how I see
*

*> interactions as "act-ualisations" of the subsets of the Universe.
*

*> Specific properties are condensed by observational acts and recorded
*

*> into matter.
*

*>
*

[MP]

I do not quite understand the 'actualization of the subset of the

Universe'.

*> > a) Cognitive spacetime sheet is piece of M^4 slightly deformed
*

*> > in direction of CP_2.
*

*> >
*

*> > b) CS is glued to MS or possible larger CS.
*

*> >
*

*> > c) CS has FINITE time duration. MS has INFINITE
*

*> > time duration (forced by the presence of conserved energy, momentum
*

etc).

*> > When CS begins, the tiny energy possessed by CS flows to it from MS
*

and

*> > back to MS when CS ends.
*

*>
*

[SPK]

*> Here we have great differences in notions, maybe... ;-) I can
*

think of

*> a cognitive spacetime sheet, in my way of (dualistic) thinking as that
*

*> *space-time sheet* identified by the information collected by a mind
*

*> during a "moment" (which I am identifying with your notion of a q-jump).
*

*> This assumes a residuation type relation between a mind's information
*

*> content and a configuration of matter/energy. It does have a finite
*

*> duration/extension as you point out. I do not see "energy" as a quantity
*

*> applicable to the mind, it is a material aspect not a mental aspect.
*

[MP] Agree

[SPK] The similarity between thermodynamic and information entropy

*> (they differ by a sign) manifest the way that the duality works.
*

*> Generation of thermal equilibrium <=> gaining of knowledge
*

*>
*

[MP] This seems to make sense also in my view. Self dissipates. When

it thinks, that is performs quantum jumps generating new subselves it

dissipates even more.

BTW, it is important to distinguish between geometric level and

quantum level. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny metaphor gives

structural correspondence between geometric and quantum.

Time development by quantum jumps<---> geometric time evolution

p-Adic evolution by quantum jumps<--> p-adic evolution at spacetime level

Strong NMP<---> absolute minimization of Kaehler action

Volitional aspect of quantum nondeterminism<-->classical nondeterminism

of Kaehler action

Final state quantum history of quantum jump<-->superposition of

spacetime surfaces having same macroscopic characters

Self<--> cognitive spacetime sheet

Increase of subjective time measured as number of qjumps<--> increase of

psychological time defined as cm temporal coordinate of cognitive

spacetime sheet

Subjective memory<-->Geometric memory (prediction)

What actually happened<--> expectation

Entanglement<--> joing along boundaries bond between spacetime sheets

Subself of larger self<--> spacetime sheet glued to larger spacetime

sheets by wormhole contacts

'Association sequence'<--> sequence of quantum jumps defining self

The correspondence between vocabularies is rather impressive

at least to me.

Well, I stop here and leave the rest to second email.

Best,

MP

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 583] Reply to Stephen about geometric time, subjective time, etc..: part II"**Previous message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 581] Re: [time 575] Time and dualism"**Next in thread:**Stephen P. King: "[time 591] Re: [time 582] Reply to Stephen about geometric time, subjective time etc.: partI"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:30 JST
*