Matti Pitkanen (email@example.com)
Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:12:59 +0300 (EET DST)
Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
> > We have the example of the pre-Galileo-Copernicus cosmology as
> > example! The models that are used to explain phenomena tend, as
> > well illustrates, to follow a socio-political consensus. I remember
> > reading that it is know that the Big Bang theory is inherently
> > problematic, "it is just that no other alternative is palatable". The
> > Big Bang theory seems to be an extension of the religion based
> > cosmogonies that reassured the masses that the Universe has created
> > humans by some ever loving Father. There is an emotional appeal to the
> > notion that the Universe, like our selves, has a finite beginning and
> > end and that we can trust our "common sense" to reassure us from our
> > insecurities.
> Actually the course of history was quite differenent.
> Big Bang solution were completely unexpected. Einstein himself was
> very disappointed and was ready to introduce cosmological constant in
> order to get static universe without beginning.
Umm, I think that it is not surprising that the tacit assumptions
from which GR has developed (Classical mathematics) lead to this Big Bang.
It is a secular version of ex nihilo creation of existence! That Einstein
was "very disappointed" makes sense when we understand his emotional
[MP] I a little bit sceptic about how classical mathematics could
have contained belief in God as the first cause(;-). Rather,
perhaps the religions gave first formulation of Big Bang cosmology
in lack of more accurate mathematical tools. Quite seriously, I
take quite seriously myths: I believe that they are first
formulations for something which later becomes formulated in
> What you meantion about socio-political consensus is true in short time
> scale: when inflationary models came in fashion it soon became clear
> they do not really work: there was inflation of not quite working
> inflationary models. There are still people tinkering these models.
> inspired cosmology has existed for more than ten years now and certainly
> many colleagues know about it but nothing happens because of
> socio-political situation in particle physics which has made impossible
> any progress after the string models became the official Truth (again
> it take only few years to unofficially realize that they do not work but
> who would dare to defy Witten).
> I believe that in long time scale we have left the
> times. Scientific method forces sooner or later to give up dead
> For instance, there are *very* few young people working with string
> and it is not difficult to guess the reason.
Interesting. What do you think that they are working on? Judging
from what I am reading on the sci.physics.research, it is tending toward a
axiomatic rethinking of current theories. I have seen sporadic signs of
interest in information theoretical approaches, such as Frieden, but
over all there seems to be a reassessment of the "basics" going on. I
think this is good!
[MP] I think that those constructing careers make mostly computer physics.
Spirit has left the theoretical physics and I am waiting its return.
I am really wondering how long time it takes before consciousness
theorizing breaks itself through. It seems to be in air. In ECHO III
conference there were a lot of discussion about consciousness.
It might occur very rapidly.
> > > GRT model is not complete. Inflationary scenario is in difficulties.
> > > I believe however that the geometrization of gravitation is
> > > what is needed is to generalized spacetime concept: spacetime
> > > as a 4-surface and manysheeted spacetime concept are my medicines
> > > to the diseases of cosmology.
> > The biggest problem we have, Matti, is that we do not understand
> > basic concepts that you are using. I still do not understand what
> > action or NMP. :-( I believe that you see something that we are
> > but the price of knowledge is the responsibility to explain yourself.
> The problem is that you are philosopher rather than
> theoretical physicists by education. There
> is nothing mysterious involved. Basic concepts of Riemannian geometry,
> fiber bundle theory, some elementary topology, basic variational
> principles. I could explain for centuries without
> any result if my audience has not never performed actual calculations
> in classical and quantum field theories and do not have practical grasp
> on the mathematics behind these concepts.
Please, Matti, could you just try me? Perhaps if you could just
discuss "basic variational
principles", it would help us. You see, I am not alone in not
understanding your tacit assumptions and thinking. I am trying hard to
infer the "why" and "how" of your conclusions so that I can understand
you. I do not share your pessimism!
[MP] I could send some postings about Kahler action which I have sent
to qmind. I am not at all sure whether this helps: one should just learn
the formalism, really derive the field equations, discover simplest
solutions, write equations explicitely in simple cases, etc..
Looking at written text full of formulas generates only depressive mood.
> What is lacking is what psychologists would perhaps call implicit
> knowledge, which one does not get without working hardly, doing
> calculations, guessing solution ansatze to field equation, etc... I
> 12 years in this business and learned to know Kaehler action
> like a good friend. It is very difficult to teach some-one to walk
> by giving mere verbal instructions about great principles of walking.
Absolutely! Your are very familiar with Kahler action, but I and
are not. While it is difficult to walk given only verbal instructions,
we are talking about mental activity that is closely aligned with the
verbal symbols making, even to the point of being identical. Mathematics
is after all a symbolic manipulating process! Just give us a chance,
> But there is alternative possibility: to concentrate on philosophy in
> philosophical discussions. Forget the details of Kahler action and
> strong NMP and think only what these variational principle dictate:
> dynamics of classical and subjective time evolution.
I am having a hard time bisimulating your thoughts = I can not
understand your tacit assumptions, thus can not follow your logical
process. You are not familiar with the work of people such as M. C.
Mackey and thus do not see the logical problems that exist in "dynamics
of classical evolution"! We are left with the picture explained by Mark
Hopkins that I forwarded [time 620]! And this is completely
Mark Hopkins describes accurately what geometric time is. This picture
works excellently as far mere basic physics is considered but when it
comes to consciousness and quantum measurement theory it breaks up.
> > When I propose a dualism, i am burdened to explain why I believe this
> > so. I can not just say: "because I (or some "authority") said so! If
> > are going to accept the "medicine" of manysheeted spacetime, we need
> > understand why. BTW, you are not the only one proposing manysheeted
> > spacetime...
> It seems that quite many people are proposing manysheeted spacetime
> concept nowadays! Since I am not allowed to publish
> anything anyone of course can steal my ideas freely. Is this person
> possibly Sarfatti?
No, I am trying to find the reference, I believe that it is in the
book The Scientist Speculates. "I.J. Good: "Winding Space" in "The
Scientist Speculates" I.J. Good ed." I am very conscious of how others
tend to use the ideas of others with out giving them credit!
I will post a quote separately.
Good speculated with imbeddings of 3-surfaces and winding: this
winding does not actually have nothing to do with many-sheetedness
in the sense I am talking about it (TGD manysheetedness has
nothing to do with manysheetedness of Riemann surfaces)
> We have been during last 4-5 years in same disccusion groups with Dr.
> Sarfatti and has been trying to steal my ideas all the time. Of
> only after not even-wrongizing them with his characteristic manner
> in every possible discussion group. He has not forgot to declare
> that I am a mad man also. The last hit was wormhole
> concept: someone in qmind group referred to Sarfatti and me as
> discovered of particle like wormholes! For roughly year ago Sarfatti
> told in qmind that he had suggested manysheeted spacetime for 15
> years ago! I could not believe my ears! The discussions with Sarfatti
> had demonstrated that he does not know absolutely anything even about
> elementary Riemann geometry, to say anything about topology! Couple of
> years ago Sarfatti began to talk about geometrodynamics and
> space as his own inventions as also about the importance of quantum
> entanglement. I even found speculation about importance of neutrinos
> in biology in some discussion group! Well, Sarfatti is pop scientists
> no one in his right mind takes him seriously so that I am not worried
> about Sarfatti.
I am not surprised!
[MP] I am not surprised of anything after these twenty years(;-).
> But Sarfatti is not the only one. Nobelist Josephson was with me in
> III conference held in Finland last year. My work
> together with person who had financiated me to the conference was about
> quantum self organization, totally new concept. In last Flagstaff
> conference Josephson had talk about quantum self organization, he
> mentioned even papers of participants of ECHO III conference but
> avoided mentioning our work! This is the situation in science nowadays.
> Perhaps the best characterization for big and pop sciences would be
>as the Noblest known forms of organized crime.
I find that it is a waste of time to worry about "intellectual
theft". I am mainly concerned with developing new ideas and free
discussion. I am influenced by Bohm in this respect.
[MP] I mentioned these examples just to demonstrate what the situation in
big science and in pop sciences is. I have no time nor interest to fight
for priorities: I am fully occupied in documenting the consequences of my
> > Wow, I would think that if we "forget General Relativity in
> > cosmological length scales" the whole Big Bang baby goes out the
> > as well! Can we start with the experimental facts, as Heisenberg
> > teaches, and start over?
> Certainly. But I am convinced that the basic principles of General
> Relativity remain. As I mentioned manysheeted spacetime surface concept
> solves nicely not only the problems of cosmology but also the anomalies
> of particle physics. Much bigger problem is the mystery of particle
> masses: Higgs mechanism is only able to reproduce particle masses
> but TGD predicts mass scales and masses and accuracy is better than
> per cent. The scandal of century is that theory with this predictive
> power cannot published: but this is socio-politics of big science
> String models are the TOE now.
Yes, and I expect this cycle to continue into the future... The
main problem I have is that I don't see how TGD calculations work. I see
no explicit equations, or "if-then" propositions, just a very complicated
story.. I am sure that this is completely in my mind as I do not have
the tacit intuitions that you do.
[MP] The calculations can be found on my homepage. There is no sense
of typing them in emails: this also impossible technically.
For instance, there are four long chapters of p-adic mass calculations in
'p-Adic TGD'. Best manner to get some impressions
about what is involved (and get depressed) is to print this text.
Construction of configuration geometry is second example.
> > The problem is that "rest" is not an absolute notion! This
> > what I call subjective and contingent upon local restraints...
> 'Rest' is precisely defined mathematical notion: calculate
> the classical four momentum of 3-surface and find the frame in
> which 3-momentum vanishes. There is nothing subjective in it.
That is not what I mean by "subjective"! These "classical
4-momenta of 3-surface", are they not infinitely many? Each having a
framing in which the 3-momentum vanishes? I have been saying that it is
this framing that constitutes the "self's" point of reference. The "center
of consciousness"! Thus if there are infinitely many disjoint framings
with vanishing 3-momenta ("self does not perceive itself to move"), them
that implies that there are an infinity of disjoint selves! I am
identifying them with Hitoshi's LS!
Self<-->LS identification corresponds to Self<--> cognitive spacetime
sheet identification in TGD.
[Every 3-surface corresponds to unique rest frame modulo
rotations around quantization axis of angular momentum:
this is required by the existence of canonical identification
mapping real spacetime to its p-adic counterpart. The localization
in zero modes in quantum jump implying the classicality
of the world of subjective experience had wide consequences.
Common rest frame corresponds to common values of certain zero modes.
In each quantum jump localization to a superposition of 3-surfaces with
same direction of classical 4-momentum and classical spin occurs
so that there is common rest frame for all. Thus one can say that
also the final states of quantum jumps correspond to unique rest frames
(modulo rotations...). This rest frame defines
also unique and common basis of Super Virasoro algebra.]
> > Could we get the same prediction from a model that assumes that
> > anisotropy is related to an stochastic fluctuation in the average of
> > observations of interaction observers? This is my idea... I see that
> > "cosmos" that we observe has such and such properties because the
> > Systems can agree enough. We have a consensus reality!
> I would answer no. What experimentalists strive at is to eliminate
> stochastic fluctuations.
That is inherently a cause of problems! It speaks to a prejudice
that fluctuations are "avoidable". I do not think so!
[MP] Fluctuations are not avoidable but their
effect to the measured observable can be eliminated simply
because the fluctuations obey statistical law
and contribution in statistical average can be subtracted.
This is practice in every microphysics experiment nowadays: signal
is buried in huge noise larger by orders of magnitude. For instance, when
particles are searched some characteristic decay signatures making
possible to detect it from background are used.
I think that Peter
Wegner's discussion of the effects "secondary observers" is a better
treatment. In fact, Frieden's work uses the fluctuations are a way to
construct physics, e.g. observers can perceive patterns of behavior by
comparing predicted to measured statistics. If we eliminate
fluctuations, we eliminate the possibility of observation!
[MP] Sorry for misleading statement.
> > There is more than mathematical consistency involved!
> > merely implies existence, not observable by us "fact"! Look at how
> > Hitoshi uses the R-W metric to explain the "illusion" of an expanding
> > universe! Why can't we face the fact that we each use our own clock
> > ruler to define our poset of observations? What is so scary? "recent
> > estimates", by who and based upon what? I know that I am being
> > but really, when do the observational facts count less than some
> > markings on a chalkboard?
> > I will not get into the problem that I have with singularities
> > "nulls"!
> Of course there is more than consistency involved. Conscistency and
> simplicity are however basic requirements on theories.
Yes, they are the basic building blocks, well at least "necessity
consistency"; "simplicity" is subjective" but we can get objective
approximations by considering it in terms of information compression!
> I have nothing against clocks and rulers. We have discussed this topic
> in length and my proposal is that the concept of clock involves
> construction of theory of consciousness, mere set-theoretic or geometric
> concepts are not enough.
But my argument is that if we can not have clocks and rulers, we
not derive meaning at all! I am saying, and I believe that Hitoshi is
also, that "clocking" and "gauging" are "what" consciousness does.
We could even say that consciousness is the process of clocking and
by each LS.
[MP] But what are the primitive notions. The concept of Riemannian
metric encapsulates completely the concepts of distances and
angles but does not provide any model for how they are measured.
This is task of consciousness theory. I think quantum jump and
self. Clocking and gauging are higher level activities of selves
and cannot be taken as basic of theory.
In your approach the basic taks would be definition of observer,
what makes observer conscious self.
We can think of symbols are pairs of points taken from Set
and Antiset (qua Pratt's definition in ratmech.ps) The trick is to
understand the mechanism of how they are matched to each other. I argue
that this is a process that is dualistic, in the sense of vectors and
linear functionals. The process of matching is manifested in matter as
thermodynamic entropy, thus the arrow of time in the physical sense. In
the information perspective, we have the construction of precedence. We
see this when we consider how the informational contents of physical
events is ordered such that no paradoxes are allowed! Why do we not see
objects appear and disappear, or time machines or perpetual motions?
Because they are examples of logical precedence contradictions!
[MP] Standard conservation laws forbid this kind of things.
Instead of assuming that the Universe is a space-time manifold
"came into being" by some freak reason, we consider that the Universe is
infinite and populated with an infinite number of observers, each only
capable of a finite number of experiences.
[MP] You throw out Riemannian space concept, whose development
and physical interpretation, has taken huge amount of swet and tears
and leave only observers. This is what I protest against. I see
the problem as adding the observer to the existing picture
or generalization of it in consistent manner.
It is the interactions of the
observers that construct space-times. I believe that the group
theoretical aspect of space-time is what matters, the organizations of
the posets of observations follows the Poincare group etceteras, we
really do not need to assume a space-time existing a priori, as Hopkins
The Chu_8 spaces supposedly have these symmetry groups!
[MP] Isn't Chu_8 finite space?
> I take seriously the 'recent estimates', say for mass density of the
> universe: the accuracy of recent day physics is amazing. For instance,
> what they do in CERN, looks almost magic to me and I feel deep awe.
> It is easy to play with hypothesis and theories but experimental
> work at this level is something extremely difficult, already because it
> requires collaboration of thousands of highly intelligent individuals.
Ever heard of "Volksgiest" Umm, I am not sure of the spelling...
effects and behavior of large groups of people acting in concert?
[MP] My greatest pleasures is to listen and look classical musicians,
say string quartets. I can rarely enjoy this pleasure but sometimes
one can experience how all musicians suddenly form single group
consciousness. It is something absolutely real, not some romantic
> What I do not take too seriously are theories and models. I remember
> my last particle physics conference: about neutrinos held in Finland.
> There were models after models: every modeller explained some pieces
> of data and 'forgot' those things the model could not explain.
> The big problems of theoretical physics are now on theoretical side.
> Holistic view is simply missing and very few remember the meaning of
> intellectual honesty. The reasons for this is that good science
> is nowadays defined as optimized production of publications.
Yes! But we still need to be careful! No single observer can
> > What about the old mathematical property of transitivity? We
> > have a "before" and "after" or nothing at all! To postulate that
> > existence "began" is a monstrous contradiction!
> I agree completely. I have been talking all the time about difference
> of subjective and geometric time: with respect to geometric time
> nothing 'begins', it just exists. This new view does not
> change basic structure of physics: physics has managed in ingenious
> manner to circumvent the problems caused by the lacking theory of
> consciousness. The new things come on the side of consciousness:
> quantum mechanics ceases to be mysterious toolbox of calculational
I agree. The problem I have is that it seems that you are saying
that geometry has specific properties, e.g. inner products, metrics,
connections, identities and I am saying that all of these properties are
contingent to observations, to particular experiences. There can be no
particular properties independent of observation, only, literally,
everything simultaneously. There is no ordering at all, no meaning
inherent. Just noise, pure randomness!
[MP] I understand competely your position. And you already know my
objections against it. My philosophy is simple: quantities are
in geometry and qualities are in moment of consciousness. You
are trying to reduce also quantities to moment of consciousness
and this I see as a mistake.
> One must be realistic: the physicists of past have done brilliant
> work, the basic theories, even cosmology, are surprisingly detailed
> and tested in many manners. There is no return to pre-Einstein times.
> We cannot throw away, we must generalize.
We winnow the chaff from the grain...
> > > What is wrong with the identification of psychological time
> > > by conscious observers with geometric time extrapolated to the
> > > that some kind of time=constant front='now' propagates in geometric
> > > spacetime. This identification indeed leads to your question what
> > > caused the initial values at the moment of big bang, At least to the
> > > problem what dictated the initial values.
> > Yes, Matti, but that is not the point! if there were no
> > time" possible, these questions would not "exist"! Why don't we just
> > consider that we are projecting an actuality, independent of the
> > observers involved, and this projection acts to "fix" "initial values"
> > that are consistent with the poset of observations of the interacting
> > observers? There is no need to assume that there is a space-time with
> > definite particle trajectories outside of observation, all that is
> > needed is to understand that posets of observations are ordered both
> > physical causality (laws of motion, conservation laws, etc.) and
> > consistency/precedence restrictions.
> As I explained above, geometric time is absolutely crucial for entire
> physics done hitherto. Physics has been able to circumvent all
> difficulties caused by the lack of proper theory of consciousness bu
> giving up geometric time would leave absolutely nothing.
I am saying, with Hitoshi and Frieden that "physics is observed
patterns of behavior", without observation the idea of patterns is
[MP] I think that elementary particle physicists see the situation
differently. Experimental physics is just testing of whether our guesses
about Platonic realities behind our observations are correct. This
becomes obvious when one thinks what particle physics experiments are
nowadays: there is no absolute observations. Every measurement is test of
> Giving up the spacetime out there would mean return to pre-Newtonian
> days and start from scratch! If some super mathematician can reproduce
> recent day physics withouth ever mentioning geometric spacetime, I can
> only admire: this would be heroic deed.
There is no need to be so pessimistic. We recover geometric
but it is seen as a pattern of behavior not an a priori synthetic. The
Poincare and Lorentz groups are patterns of behavior, not "things" in
themselves, but actually all "objects" are "patterns of behavior". There
is no "stuff", Marmet's "kickability" only serves to distinguish that is
concrete to a given observer, not what "exists". Concreteness is
[MP] I would assign patterns of behaviour to selves:
self-organized patterns of quantum jump sequences. 'Kickability'
is realized in the quantum jump concept: conscious observation
replaces quantum history/objective reality with a new one. Old
geometric existence is replaced with a new one.
Was it Haken who talks about Being and Becoming. You try
to get rid of Being. I keep them both.
> I have gone during last twenty years through entire physics,
> looked what new TGD implies in quark, hadron, nuclear,.... levels
> and learned that I must be realist: this construct is something which I
> can only generalize, not throw away.
Sure, this is a very laudable accomplishment, but you also need be
to explain yourself to others. Reductionism has its place, like
Feymann's "easy pieces"
> The idea of Pratt is nice but its applications might be at totally
> different level: in computing rather than consciousness and basic
> How to reproduce the effective action describing CP breaking in
> kaon system or Cabibbi-Maskawa-Kobayashi matrix describing the mixing of
> quarks from this idea? This one should be able to do.
You are being impatient. We first need to work out the
What is the dimension of Chu_8 spaces. I have the feeling that they
are finite: am I correct?
> Putting it still differently. Theoretical physics has always created
> its mathematics. Taking piece of mathematics and building physics from
> it has not worked. The sad story of quantum groups is excellent
> example of this.
I disagree! What about Einstein's use of Riemannian geometry or
physicist use of Galois and Lie groups? The math came first! What have
you been reading? It is when physicist do not have good holistic
intuitions or good philosophical underpinnings that "sad stories" occur!
[MP] Riemann constructed his geometry as a model of two-dimensional
surfaces: 'geodesics' reminds of this. Riemann even suggested that
3-space is surface in 4-dimensional space! TGD only generalizes this!
(Kaku's 'Hyperspace' tells about the history of hyperspace concept).
Einstein generalized Riemann geometry to pseudo-Riemannian
The mathematics of quantum field theories was constructed
by physicists (oscillator operator algebras, etc) and Witten has
applied it with fantastic success to mathematics.
Yang-Mills theories were discovered *independently* by physicists in
need to describe strong interactions: mathematicians has discovered
the notion of connection earlier.
The mathematics of Yang Mills theories has been applied to classification
of 4-manifolds. I am not sure whether the concept of Lie groups was
discovered as pure mathematics first.
Number theory is certainly the thing which has not been
popped in physics except rather recently(;-). But again:
the modest fellow who suggested p-adics physics ended up to a
generalization of the concept of prime to infinite prime on purely
physical grounds and discovered that construction of infinite
primes is procedure analogous to repeated second quantization(;-).
>In TGD I learned the same lesson: functional integral
> approach simply did not make sense at all. This forced to discover
> configuration space geometry. Later came p-adic mass calculations
> and gradual realization that entire quantum TGD involves p-adics in
> essential manner. Some simple counter arguments against p-adic
> evolution implied by unitarity and simple argument inspired
> by p-adic length scale hypothesis led to the discovery of infinite
All of this is excellent, but that is not my point. We must be
answer the problems of computation. Karl Svozil's work is a good start!
[MP] But we must define computation in sufficiently general sense
so that we can take seriously the idea that physics is computation.
In TGD Universe is indeed quantum computer in very general
sense. Each quantum jump is quantum computation by infinite computer
lasting infinite time! Why should I return backwards to the days of
classical computationalism having not obvious connection to physics
after having realized how classical physics, quantum physics and
quantum measurement theory fuse to single beautiful and coherent whole.
The computationalism is here! The task is to show in which approximation
classical computationalism with its various variants emerges from
> I spend a lot of time by discovering counter arguments against my own
> mental constructs. This method might be very productive also
> in Pratt's case. Does fundamental mind-matter causation allow
> genuine free will or does it imply that the evolutions of mind and
> matter fix each other uniquely: if this is the case then one has
> just materialism and mind becomes epiphenomenon?
Yes, we have free will! It shows up in "how" "the evolutions of
and matter fix each other". It is local, in Hitoshi's sense! There is no
"unique" fixing in finite time! It takes Eternity to accomplish the
matching of all states of Mind with all events of Body!
[MP] OK. This is fine.
> Does this theory
> explain passive and active aspects of consciousness? Or is the theory
> able to circumvent basic counterarguments of Chalmers: what
> between matter and mind in so deep manner that we can really call
> mind 'mind' and matter 'matter' and not vice versa?
Let us discuss the specifics of Pratt's work!
[MP] I could not see this difference between matter and mind
from Pratt's work. For me the basic difference is that matter
is characterizable by quantities and thus modellable mathematically
and mind/consciousness is qualitative, not characterizable by number.
For instance, I would not try to assign number to the property like
'silent in the manner calm sea in the morning of early summer
> > Instead of assuming that there exists some divine entity "out
> > making sure that Laws are obeyed, why can't we consider that local
> > logical considerations are necessary and sufficient?
> I am not sure what you mean by some divine entity out there.
> Perhaps our refer to the concepts of objective reality, configuration
> space, imbedding space and spacetime as dynamical concept.
Yes, you treat them as pre-selected.
[MP] No. Every quantum jump replaces objective reality with new one:
the superposition of classically equivalent spacetimes with a new one.
This is quite a step from the materialistic view postulating
single pre-selected objective reality. And dissipation is direct signature
that this indeed happens.
The difficulties caused by questions 'What were the initial values
in Big Bang' and 'How theory can make sense if only single solution
of field equations is actually realized' disappear.
And consistency with existing physics is achieved.
You are postulating that each moment of time involves some congiguration
of matterlike and mindlike dynamical variables. I only generalize
this configuration from time=snapshot to entire geometric time development
in accordance with General Coordinate Invariance forcing
the concept of spacetime. Nothing else is involved: this leads
to concept of quantum jump between quantum histories.
> The problem is that entire science relies on the idea
> that there is something out there, the objective reality. This was the
> great discovery of Galileo and we know the consequences. I am ready to
> believe that Galileo was almost right: the only new thing is that that
> something out there (as also in here) changes in every moment of
That The Universe exists is not in doubt, it is the particular
properties of its parts. THese are the contents of observations,
measurements and experiences in general. The Universe does not "know"
what it is like to be me in such and such a situation prior to my
specific experience! The moments of consciousness are the "giving of
names", the definition of "what is it like to be", the generation of
"Objective reality" is the Universe. Yes, it is "out there" and
everywhere and everywhen! The main point is that it is EVERYTHING, and
thus has no particular properties. There is nothing that it is not! Do I
make any sense here? It can not be aware of itself, because of this last
aspect. Consciousness requires that there be something "other".
[MP] Initial and final states of quantum jump bring in the comparison.
Initial unverse and final universe. Moments of consciousness are
also destruction and creation.
> One can perhaps build nice philosophy without the idea of
> objective reality (realities) assumption but I simply have no idea how
> do any physics without this assumption.
Yes. Am I making sense?
> I have nothing against locality.
Have you read and understood Hitoshi's definition of locality?
> Entire TGD relies on locality appropriately generalized. Quantum TGD
> is local with respect to configuration space. Kahler action is local
> variational principle. It is good to think what locality is: before
> one can event formulate this concept one has assumed a lot.
This is a subject for discussion in itself!
> One has assumed space and topology telling what the concept of nearness
> is. Already these assumptions means someting out there.
> If one takes your idea to logical exteme, one can make only one
> conclusion, stop totally attempts to understand the world and just
> experience it.
Wow, I had no idea that that was how my words could be
> > > The correct question to ask is what is the mechanism causing
> > > the conents of our conscious experience to be concentrated around
> > > definite moment T of geometric time (as it seems) and why the
> > > value of T increases at least statistically. This unavoidably leads
> > > a theory of consciousness. which cannot be done yet publicly.
> > This is one of the aspects of Pratt's dualism! The connection
> > time and consciousness becomes obvious when we consider that "time" is
> > meaningless independent of observation! When we require a "mechanism"
> > "cause the contents of our ... experience to be concentrated
> > we are tacitly assuming that there is a unique T increasing ("at least
> > statistically").
> Yes. I am assuming geometric time. I do not believe that mere
> irreversible subjective time measured just as ticks
> (as it seems to be in Pratt's theory) without any other
> properties can explain the geometric aspects of psychological time:
> complexity and macroscopy do not bring in these geometric aspects of
> psychological time. This would be magic which rarely works in this
> bad world.
Please, Matti, read http://boole.stanford.edu/chuguide.html#ph94
and http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/maryland.ps and
[MP] I am familiar with basic idea and my interpretation is
that there is sequence of events very much similar to quantum jumps.
This discrete sequence is just the essence of computation and
it simply is not enough. Also geometric time is needed
and this gives the physics. And as I already explained,
I also believe that matter is mathematically modellable but mind is not:
quantity and quality.
> My materialistic colleagues often say that consciousness somehow
> 'emerges' when system becomes sufficiently complicated. This is wishful
> thinking and does not say anything about consciousness. Similar wishful
> thinking is the idea about discrete net of points which somehow gives
> rise to continuous spacetime at 'macroscopic' level and that Riemannian
> geometry in some miraculous manner establishes itself. I do
> not believe in this kind of hat tricks.
Sure, that is the easy way to avoid the "hard problem" of modeling
the observer of the behavior along with the behavior.
> > Why? Is it not enough to consider that each observer
> > has a clock and can make observations (of each other!) and that
> > of observers that have similar enough observations tend
> > to be able to agree? This "mechanism" looks suspiciously, to me, like
> > "God"!
> The basic problem is 'observer' as something pregiven: natural in
> dualistic approach where you have mind and matter
> as something a priori given. Selves however get drowsy and can sleep
> and die. One useful potential objection against dualistic approach is
> how to describe what it is to be unconscious
> observer in dualistic framework.
No, the observer is not "pregiven". The observer is "bootstrapped"
into being by partial orderings of observations. Umm, I guess that I need
to be more precise on that an "observation" is, to be clear! But, in order
to make sense of my thinking it is necessary that you understand how
circularity is acceptable. The discussion of Non-well Founded sets
theory in Peter's paper http://www.cs.brown.edu/~pw/papers/math1.ps is
the best place to start.
I find that the discussion is somehow fixated on defensing of our
philosophies and we both know quite well each other's basic prejudices
now and also that these basic beliefs are not easily changed.
It might be useful to concentrate to something else. Perhaps I could
try to find files about basic formulation of TGD which I sent to qmind.
I am a little bit sceptic here: old fashioned chalk and blackboard would
be the best tool to explain this kind of things.
Besides: when I wrote from the requirement of Dr. Sar series of posting
more technically the basics of TGD, I got absolutely no comments
from Dr. Sar!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:31 JST