[time 592] Re: [time 583] Reply to Stephen about geometric time, subjective time, etc..:part II

Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:45:14 -0400

Dear Matti,


Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> [MP] I do not see anything bad in statistical nature of time's arrow. The
> statistical nature of arrow of psychological time is in principle testable
> prediction. In practice the statistics is so excellent (10^40 quantum
> jumps per second!) that there are probably no hopes of
> observing the actual nondeterminism. One should be able to do
> experimentation in time scale of 10^(-40) seconds: BTW, the time scale at
> which all symmetries are expected to unify!

        There should be some way of falsifying this hypothesis! I believe that
the "Big Bang" singularities are given by the "unification of
symmetries". It is interesting that the BB singularities look a lot like
what I call the Universe! I use the plural since I believe that there
are many of such. In my paper Forbidden Symmetries I speculated that a
particular space-time lasts only 10^(-44) seconds... :-)
> Most colleagues would believe that this time scale is scale where
> standard spacetime concept breaks down: I claim that it is psychological
> time=geometric time idealization, which breaks down at this time scale.
        While I agree that it does seem that space-time "breaks down" at such a
scale, I believe that such is not the only scale that exists. I believe
that there are an infinite number of such scales, it is only that a
finite number can interacte with each other...
        I feel that there is something to the Many-World interpretation!
> [MP] Also cognitive spacetime sheets contain classical fields and energy
> but energies are extremely tiny. Cognitive spacetime sheets
> take small sample of material spacetime sheet: they are measurement
> instruments.

        Umm, how is the "sample" related to the "whole"? This looks like the
css "tastes" the mss...
> > So why do we have a geometric time at all? Is it because of your use of
> > a "M^4_+ future light cone"? I must say that I have a serious problem
> > with this! All that an observer can "see" is within a M^4- past light
> > cone, the M^4+ is not "out there" any more than "tomorrow" is out there
> > waiting for me to get to it. Actually, the "past" only is actual in that
> > records can be found of its events, it is not "out there" either! The
> > events that are experience by observers are "put together" by their
> > observations, each observer's acts select from the infinite potential
> > (of Existence) to actualize an observation. The recording of such is
> > dual to the selection.
> [MP] Without geometric time one loses practically all known physics.
> For instance, there would be no concept of energy
> (invariance of laws of physics with respect to time translations),etc...
> Main stream physics do not even mention the notions of
> psychological time or subjective time: as far as predictions are
> considered only geometric time is needed. Of course this all
> is just play with formulas. They are not understood but they work
> magically. For instance, scattering rates involve integrals over entire
> geometric spacetime: taking literally this is nonsense from standard
> physics view but the formulas work.

        I have a way of defining energy! I just do not know how to explain it
mathematically... It is roughly the potential difference between the
LSs. If the LSs are at equilibrium with respect to each other, there is
no energy definable. The use of "integrals over entire geometric
spacetimes" to calculate scattering rates makes sense!
> The problem is to understand the triplet subjective time-psychological
> time-geometric time: how they relate to each other.

        Yes! I would very much like to understand what you are thinking on
this! :-)
> > Umm... why then do people identify the reals with temporal events? Your
> > idea of "values seem to increase" is usually associated with "the
> > thermodynamic arrow" in the literature...
> [MP] Perhaps because Einstein talked about events. Just thinking
> carefully what Riemann geometry really is one realizes that
> there are no time arrow involved. Time and space are in same position.
> There is no preferred time coordinate to measure. If one introduces
> clock measuring geometric time, one should introduce also clocks measuring
> all three spatial coordinates.

        We really do not need to assume that space and time are actual outside
of experience.
> The map assigning definite temporal cm coordinate of cognitive spacetime
> sheet maps subjective time to geometric time and then we make the error of
> projecting the irreversiblity and clockability of subjective time
> to properties of geometric time.

        It is just that you use the term "time" so liberably. I am confused.

> > > I would say something resembling this: subjective existence is in
> > > quantum jump. Universes/quantum histories themselves are LOGOS=COSMOS
> > > but without consciousness.
> >
> [SPK] To me LOGOS is a verb, an act... I do agree that Universes/quantum
> > histories themselves have no consciousness, but only when we are
> > considering them from the perspective of observations. The
> > Object-Subject relation is, I believe, symmetrical. Every object that I
> > can perceive is, in a sense of interactions, perceiving me.
> >
> [MP] I would have agreed about symmetry for half a year ago but I
> do not know anymore. Strong NMP did not
> tell whether it is subsystem or its complement which is measured.
> The notion of self forced different interpretation: experiencer
> is self whose subsystem and its complement
> inside self define the quantum measurement.

        Could you please give us an explicit explanation of "strong NMP"? Is
there a problem with the subject-object symmetry?
> >If any classical system's behavior can be modeled by a UTM and a UTM
> > can be implemented in a classical system, I see a connection between
> > time and computation! (Noting that this particular model assumes unique
> > initiality conditions) Now that we have good models of quantum
> > computation, such as Peter's, we can understand better how time works in
> > a quantum context... It is just a model, a way of thinking after all...
> >
> [MP]
> Problems are caused by noncomputability in classical context.
        Could you explain?

> > > Calude speaks of *rows of integers* having finite expansion.
> > > Also rationals have periodic decimal expansion and information
> > > about rational can be coded by finite number of decimals (right?).
> >
> > Let me see... "Any finite sequence [of symbols] can be unambiguously
> > coded in binary (or decimal) and thus corresponds exactly to some
> > rational number." What I am making noise about is that "symbols" are
> > matter codings of information. (Without matter it would be impossible to
> > make records, thus disproving Idealism...) Umm, another thing about
> > Calude's Lexicons are like programs, they need material configurations
> > to be read, e.g. reading heads - tape, etc.
> [MP] This is perfectly understandable if symbols carry finite bits of
> information to us. What fascinates me that characterization
> of quantum jump by bit sequence, integer leads to characterization
> of infinite sequence of quantum jumps by real and since most
> reals are lexicons this means that every quantum jump (classified
> in pinary resolution) appears infinitely many times in sequence.
> This means complete information about all possible quantum jumps.
> The infinite p systems with infinitely long subjective memory
> have all the data needed to build a physical theory and communicate
> it to us(;-)!
        Can you think of why it is that "symbols [would] carry finite bits of
information to us"?
> > > I generalize integers by starting from the decomposition to a product
> > > of powers of prime.
> > >
> > > N= Prod_k p^(n_k).

> > Could you give me a specific numerical example? The algebra symbols
> > give me no pictures. :-(
> >
> [MP]
> Examples of prime decompositions of finite integers:
> 9=3^3, 14=2*7, 28= 2^2*7, 60= 2^2*5*3, etc...
> What I allow is also infinite primes in these product decompositions:
> single example.
> Denote by X=2*3*7*... the product of all finite primes. I do not bother
> to write it to the marginal since my computer memory is rather limited
> but
> it is purely mechanical task and I leave it as an exercise(;-).
> P = X+1 is infinite prime since P modulo p is 1 modulo p =1
> for any finite prime so that no finite p divides P.
> 2*3*P is infinite integer.
> > > Usually only finite primes appear in this product. Now I allow also
> > > infinite primes and their powers and get infinite integers. I believe
> > > that the construction for all infinite primes exists.
> >
> [SPK]
> > What cardinality does the set of these primes have? Umm, this looks
> > like a alternative to the continuum hypothesis...
> > http://www.ii.com/math/ch/faq/
> [MP] I wrote something about the cardinalities but I cannot
> recall the argument. The cardinaly of basic primes at first level
> is at least the cardinality of possible subsets of primes
> since simplest infinite primes correspond physically to many-fermions
> states formed from fermions labelled by primes. This would
> mean at least the cardinality of reals since the cardinality
> of subsets of integers is that of reals (OK?).
> There are also other infinite primes that the basic ones so that
> cardinality at the first level is *at least* the cardinality of
> reals. At the next level of infinity the cardinality is at
> least the cardinality of all subsets of reals, etc...
> Perhaps this goes like
> C= cardinality of integers (primes).
> C1>= 2^C,
> C2>=2^C1, ......

> Chalmers represented in his books arguments stating that the basic
> problem of dualism is that consistency with the determinism of physics
> leads to conclusion that mind is one-one image of matter and can be
> eliminated as un-necessary so that one has materialistic
> monism. Or that in interactive dualism there is no
> basic difference between matter and mind like degrees of freedom
> and one could quite well call them just matterlike. Have you studied
> these arguments?
> > ...I do not understand Sarfatti's version of dualism.
> [MP] The idea is to regard some fields as matter like and some fields
> as mind like obeying determistic dynamics. The dynamics of matter fields
> looks nondeterministic if one forgets the presence of mind like fields.
> The problem is that the decomposition into matter and mind like fields
> is completely ad hoc.
> Pilot wave would be mind like field and classical particles would
> represent matter.
        This looks like a material monism to me! Ad hoc indeed!
> > ok. I am very interested in this notion of statistical
> determinism. :-)
> > Could you elaborate on your thinking about it?
> [MP]
> This is the basic hypothesis of QM. In ensemble of identical systems
> under identical conditions the probabilities of outcomes are what
> Born rule gives for them.
> For temporal sequence of quantum jumps the same holds. This is crucial
> for the concept of self. 10^40 quantum jumps means that self of
> age of one second experiences kind of average experience and this
> experience is reliable although the outcomes of individual quantum jumps
> are not predictable.
> The great surprise for me was that quantum statistical determinism
> seems to be present directly at the level of our own experiencing:
> not only in the analysis of quantum measurements made for
> atomic systems.

        What if every system in the ensemble has "experiences", each just
slightly different...



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