Matti Pitkanen (email@example.com)
Mon, 23 Aug 1999 07:46:42 +0300 (EET DST)
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
> 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... :-)
Certainly there are many ways. If hypothesis predicts infinte hierarchy of
selves and communication between them, it is certainly possible to falsify
it! The task is to deduce predictions. One dramatic prediction related
to self hypothesis is anomalously low dissipation and metabolism about
which I have already told.
> > 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] I told in separate posting (yesterday) about the relationship of some
aspects of Many-World picture to TGD.
> > [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...
[MP] Basically it tastes. For instance, extremely tiny current through
potentiometer allows to measure the potential difference associated with
circuit. Frequencies are mapped to frequencies (radio forecasting).
> > [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.
>[SPK]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!
Defining energy withouth introducing time: I am not sure whether you mean
this. But again there are *very* strong purely group theoretic constraints
on energy. Energy and momenta must transform in quite specific manner in
Lorentz transformations: this is empirical particle physics fact.
To summarize it: if one gives up time, one must still be able to realize
Poincare group as at least approximate symmetries, not in spacetime
anymore but in statespace.
Also Maxwells equations, etc.. are essentially 4-dimensional construct.
E and B form components of 4-dimensional tensor. Again one should
end up with situation in which everything is apparently 4-dimensional.
Time appears as a parameter which behaves as a time coordinate
in spirit of Einstein. In this kind of situation it is not useful
to pretend that geometric time is not there.
> > The problem is to understand the triplet subjective time-psychological
> > time-geometric time: how they relate to each other.
[SPK] Yes! I would very much like to understand what you are thinking on
> this! :-)
[MP] It seems that I am poor communicator or that these ideas are not
communicable(;-). Could it be that your dualistic philosophy is what
makes it so difficult to understand my point of view?
> > > 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.
[SPK] We really do not need to assume that space and time are actual
>outside of experience.
[MP] As I told above: if you give up time you have hard time in
reproducing existing precision tested particle physics and the end result
is the conclusion that everything behaves as if geometric spacetime
exists and the simplest thing to do is to allow its 'real' existence.
> > 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 am not using time liberably. I have only done a lot of work to
discover that it has very many meanings which usually are not realized.
I carefully distinguish between subjective time, geometric time and
Of course, general coordinate invariance allows define infinite number of
variants of geometric time: Minkowski time, lightcone proper time, time
coordinate of spacetime surface, etc... This increases the confusion
unless one is very careful with the basic definitions.
Subjective time is something absolute: it just ticks, you cannot apply
Lorentz transformations to it. There is no subjective space.
> > >
> > [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?
Strong NMP fixes the subjective time evolution inside each self.
Quantum measurement occurs and corresponds to measurement of density
matrix for some subsystem of self (or its complement inside self, there is
complete symmetry). The happy subsystem is the one for which
entanglement negentropy gain is largest in quantum jump.
Entanglement negentropy goes to zero in quantum jump.
Its p-adic counterpart is given by SUM(n)p(n)Log_p(p_n)
where p(n) are entanglement probabilities. Log_p(x) is
the integer valued p-adic counterpart of logarithm function.
Real counterpart S_R of S is obtained by canonical identification
and it is S_R which is the largest one for the winner of NM race.
> > >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?
[MP] I referred to the fact that most classical systems are chaotic and
one cannot calculate the predictions in finite time. I think you mentioned
the case in which simple linear wave equation fails to be predictable
> > >
> > > 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"?
[MP] I see this as follows. The letters which I read now, wake-up
sub-selves inside me. These subselves I experience thoughts with meaning
and information. The only problem is to establish standard rules. Standard
sensory input wakes-up stand subself. [Note that though is just lower
level thinker in this picture: economical!]
It is somewhat difficult to say how many bits of information single letter
actually contains. It can be coded to recognizable pattern using finite
number of binary digits in computer memory but the number of digits
needed to code alphabet depends only on the number of letters in alphabet:
it does not tell about real information.
[People believing in I Chin migh be right: perhaps higher level
selves are desperately working to establish standard language
with which to communicate with us. Linguistic conventions are
always randomly choosen and the problem is that we, as rational
westerners, simply cannot take seriously that some random rules
would make sense.(;-) ]
> > > > 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!
[MP] The basic objection against dualism consistent with physics is
that it reduces to material monism. Determinism tends to lead
to the conclusion that mental is mere mirror image of material.
Be cautious, this objection is dangerous creature!
> > > 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...
In this case self experiencse all of them as separate. Next level self
experiences their average. In retina it seems necessary to assume
that color experiences of rods and cones are statistically averaged
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:30 JST