**Stephen P. King** (*stephenk1@home.com*)

*Sun, 22 Aug 1999 10:58:48 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 592] Re: [time 583] Reply to Stephen about geometric time, subjective time, etc..:part II"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 590] Re: [time 589] parallel worlds"**Maybe in reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 589] parallel worlds"

Hi Matti,

snipping

Matti Pitkanen wrote:

*>
*

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

*>
*

*> [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.
*

A clock seems to require a comparison between at least two manifolds

such that variations of one can be given against another, that acts like

the standard scale. I think that a clocking action involves a

tripartiteness: A manifold X, that acts as the object of observation, a

manifold A that acts as the reference standard, and a mapping X <-> A

that compares the two. I think that a minimal mathematical relation for

X and A is that there is a basis such that X is orthogonal to A. This

would make the operation X <-> A a projection operator.

We could easily see that your q-jump would meet this if we could show

that the initial and final sheets are orthogonal in some basis, since

the jump itself looks like a projection or I <-> F.

[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.
*

I am still not sure what you mean here in that "Riemannian geometry

abstracts..." I do not agree with your statement "there is no essential

difference between time and space"! How? space is given by the

"extensional" quantities and time by the "duration" quantities. There is

a basic difference! "Extensionality" involves transformations of

relational placements of events/states and "durationality" involve

comparisons of the "before and after" of the transformations of

relational placements. So it seems that the two are interdependent but

not reducible...

I just wonder how the distribution of the g_ij of the Riemannian

geometry are given ab initio...

*> > [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.
*

Umm, this makes sense. Expectations are an important aspect of

statistics. Umm, I am wanting to explore the work of Amari with regards

to a connection discovered between statistics and geometry. :-) A

teaser: what is the difference between the distribution of expected

values and the measured distribution of values given an ensemble?

Can we think of an ensemble of points as a manifold having a metric?

*> [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.
*

Me too! I think that Amari's work will help us with this! See

http://mijuno.larc.nasa.gov/dfc/biblio/gstatB.html

*> 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.
*

This makes sense. :-) I just think that we are trying to cover too much

with a single perspective...

*> [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.
*

This look to me that the 10^40 gives a time-series window within which

a "self" can be reflected. I think that there would be a "ensemble" that

is "equivalent" to this time-series in terms of the information content

involved. I still do not understand what "absolute minima of Kaehler

action" has to do with "classical

nondeterminism". :-( Frankly I don't see how classical physics is

"nondeterministic". I am confused. :-(

snip

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.
*

Interesting! I would like to see an explicit calculation of this! :-)

*> 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.
*

You mean no ultraviolet divergence caused by the Z^0 interaction?

*> 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).
*

"Epithelial"?? "They are contiguous (i.e., the cells are attached to

one another)"????

http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/histo/BasicTissue/Epith.char.html

*> 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.
*

How does p-adic TGD model the chirality of the three generations of

neutrinos and their masses? Can you explain this explicitly?

*> 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.
*

"Z0 magnetic"? Could you elaborate?

*> 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.
*

Could you give me some references on this anomaly?

*> 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.
*

Has the "effect" been confirmed?

*> 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).
*

Any references on this? That about the gravitational shielding effect

that has been reported in connection with spinning superconductor disks?

*> 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!
*

Could you post this notion explicitly?

*> 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.
*

Umm, this looks a bit ad hoc...

*> 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).
*

Is it necessary to require a "particle" to "realize thoughts"?!

*> 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).
*

I don't follow... :-(

snip

[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.
*

Can we think of the "thickening" as a consequence of considering

velocities distributions, e.g. greater than zero (null) lengths between

events?

snip

[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.
*

This is a clocking between the "perception of the clock on the wall"

and the "memory of a clock"... I agree that subjective memory is very

important here. I think of memory as a finite and variable subset

partitioned out from the Set of all possible Minds by the clocking

action. It is a selective act resulting from am interaction between

object (subuniverse) and subject (Self). What we have to understand is

that we have no unique Self and no unique clocking, we have infinite

equivalence classes of each! Also the subject-object relation is

symmetric!

[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.
*

Sure, but like I said, we can not experience the subsets "directly" we

can not "know what it is like" to be such in a first-person sense... We

can only represent what it would be like in terms of our experiences,

e.g. we use our own experiences as the building block to model the

expected observations of the subselves, we do not use the experiences of

the subselves.

snip

[SPK]

*> > 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!
*

I think that we need to look more carefully at the time-energy

uncertainty relation! Prigogine and Schommers have suggested the use of

semigroups in order to make irreversibility primitive in the model. It

is obvious, at least to some, that the traditional formulation of QM is

too heavily dependent on classical assumptions!

[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.
*

Mackey uses the concept of a "trace" to define irreversibility. FOr me,

it is like a poset X or spanning partition of a manifold Y such that

arbitrary points in X can be connected by poset X of point in Y. Here

it is:

"...Every continuous trajectory (function) in a space X is the trace

[think of a slice of the space X. SPK note] of a SINGLE dynamical

[reversible-invertible-time symmetric!] system operating in a higher

dimensional phase space Y!"

"Theorem 9.1 (God Theorem). Let the phase space X be arbitrary. Then

there is a second phase space Y, a dynamical system S_t operating in Y,

and a continuous F : Y -> X such that every continuos function

trajectory h : R -> X is the trace of S_t. That is, for every trajectory

h there is a point y in the phase space Y such that h(t) = F(S_t(y)) for

all times t." (sic)

(Michael C. Mackey "Time's Arrow: The Origins of Thermodynamic Behavior"

Springer-Verlag, 1992) Pg. 111

Also see: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9712038

snip

[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?
*

Is it a key fundamental axiom! For instance:

http://www.kitada.com/time_III.html

"The fact that the universe as a whole is not a local system thus makes

it reasonable to postulate that there is no time associated with the

total universe. This postulate is axiom 1 of Kitada 1994a. This

distinction

between local systems and the total universe is seen more clearly when

one notices that the local Hamiltonians describing local systems and the

total Hamiltonian used to define the total universe differ in that the

former is of finite degrees of freedom while the latter is of infinite

degrees of freedom, and that the local Hamiltonians are no more than

convenient approximations to the total Hamiltonian, used instead of the

true, total Hamiltonian when one observes the outside. The fact that

each of the local Hamiltonians of finite degrees of freedom is an

approximation, but only an approximation, of the total Hamiltonian of

infinite degrees of freedom has an interesting and important

consequence: Namely it allows each local system to vary, so that local

motions can occur and local clocks can be defined -- even though the

total universe, consisting

of an infinite number of particles is stationary'

snip

[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.
*

But I am wondering how it is that motion occurs at all in your theory!?

[SPK]

*> > 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'.
*

This is what I call the acts of experience of subsets (LSs) of the

Universe. It is a endless (and beginningless) process of equilibration

between the "parts" of the Universe, they are endlessly attempting to

simulate each others behavior. The whole is at equilibrium since it has

no "other" to equilibrate with, thus it has no time as it can not

change. This implies that the Universe as a whole can not have

"experiences" or be "self-aware"!

Here is Hitoshi's version:

"Our axiom 1 which asserts that the total universe, which will be

denoted \phi, is stationary means in its mathematical formulation that

it is an eigenstate of a total Hamiltonian H. This means that the

universe \phi is an eternal truth, which cannot be explained in terms of

duration or time. In fact, the eigenstate in itself contains no

reference to time, as may be seen from its definition: H\phi=\lambda\phi

for some real number \lambda. The reader might think that this

definition just states that the entire universe \phi is frozen at an

instant which lasts forever without a beginning or end. However, as we

will see, the total universe \phi has infinite degrees of freedom inside

itself, as internal motion of finite and local systems, and never

freezes.

Therefore, as an existence itself, the universe \phi does not change,

however, at the same time, it is not frozen internally.

These two seemingly contradictory aspects of the universe \phi are

possible by virtue of the quantum mechanical nature of the definition of

eigenstates.

To sum up, the universe itself does not change. However, inside itself,

the universe can vary quantum mechanically, in any local region or in

any local system consisting of a finite number of (quantum mechanical)

particles. Therefore, we can define a local time in each local system as

a measure or a clock of (quantum mechanical) motions in that local

system."

http://www.kitada.com/time_III.html

[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.
*

Yes, this is identical to my notion of "endless equilibration". Hitoshi

gets into more details with the analysis of the time uncertainty, for

instance:

"This local time is an approximate one in a double sense: First,

tm{t}_{{m}} is only {asymptotically} equal to \pm \vert xb{x}_{{b}}\vert

/\vert qb{q}_{{b}}\vert as m\to \pm \infty . This fact explains the

so-called principle of uncertainty in our context. In the usual

explanation, the position xb{x}_{{b}} and the velocity qb{q}_{{b}} or

the momentum pb{p}_{{b}} cannot be determined with equal accuracy.

According to our theory, this is rephrased as follows: The time t cannot

be determined accurately, even if xb{x}_{{b}} and qb{q}_{{b}} could be

determined precisely. It is only determined in some {mean} sense as in

(11). (See Enss [8]. Also see Derezin\csname _acute\endcsnameski [11],

sect. 5, for more precise inequalities which hold for xb{x}_{{b}},

qb{q}_{{b}} and the local time t under some decompositions of the phase

space other than (8).) Second, the local Hamiltonian Hn\ell {H}_{n\ell }

is not the total Hamiltonian H. Or rather, the time arises from this

approximation of H by Hn\ell {H}_{n\ell }. This approximation may make

Hn\ell {\cal{H}}_{n\ell } non-trivial, and the clock \exp [-itHn\ell

{itH}_{n\ell }] can be defined as in {definition} 2 owing to (I-PHn\ell

{H}_{n\ell }{P}_{{{H}_{n\ell }}})Hn\ell {\cal{H}}_{n\ell }\ne \{0\}. On

the contrary, the total universe \phi has no associated clock and time,

since (I-PH{P}_{{H}})\phi =0."

http://www.kitada.com/time_I.tex

*> 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.
*

In the Local System model the subjective self is quantum mechanical and

the objective experience is classical... Thus, relating it to your

thinking: q-jumps <---> LS interior behavior, geometric evolution <--->

evolution of perceptions.

Onward,

Stephen

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 592] Re: [time 583] Reply to Stephen about geometric time, subjective time, etc..:part II"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 590] Re: [time 589] parallel worlds"**Maybe in reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 589] parallel worlds"

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