[time 631] Re: [time 628] What is Primitive?

Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:57:52 -0400

Dear Matti,

Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> [MP]
> > 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.

        Yes, formulas by themselves are depressing. We will need to discuss
them to ensure accurate information flow between us. :-)
> [MP]
> 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.

        Yes, and that is what all of us are interested in.
> [MP]
> > 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.
> [MP]
> 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)

> > '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!
> [MP]
> 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.

        Hold, on. You lost me here. :-( Exactly what do you mean by
"classically"? The elimination of the observability of discreteness?
This reminds me of the "blind spot" phenomena of vision. Our minds
"fills in the blank"...
> Common rest frame corresponds to common values of certain zero modes.

        Could you elaborate on this? It looks suspiciously like what I think:
that observers can have "worlds" in common depending upon the "mutual
synchronization of their rest frames"... This implies that if the
synchronization were changed, the commonality would proportionally
dissapear! This appears to be what is happening with the Hubble

> 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.]

        Is it "localization *to* a superposition" or "localization *from* a
superposition"? This "modulo rotation", what is it saying? That rest
frames can be transformed into each other by a rotation? What kind of
rotation? Can you give me a reference about Super Virasoro algebra?

> [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
> new particles are searched some characteristic decay signatures making
> possible to detect it from background are used.

        Yes, this makes sense. We can subtract out the random element from a
signal by adding a 180% phase shifted sample of the particular random
noise. (I see renormalization as an example of this!) The difficulty is
that the type of noise used skews the resulting signal!

> > 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
> can 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
> gauging 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.

        I do not understand. Clocking and gauging are the primitive acts with
which selves are composed, they are "what consciousness does". I do not
understand why you say: "Clocking and gauging are higher level
activities of selves and cannot be taken as basic of theory"!
        It is obvious, at least to me (and Wheeler, Frieden, Schommers,
Heisenberg, Finkelstein, Kitada, etc.) that "HOW measurement occurs" is
just as primitive as "WHAT is measured".
        Perhaps this quote from Schommers' book (The Visible and Invisible:
Matter and Mind in Physics, (World Scientific, 1998) pg. 233.) would be

        "People stumble again and again into conflicts because they assume that
they know what objective reality is. Therefore, everybody believes that
they recognize the ideas of others. However, this is obviously not the
case since everybody lives in their own reality. It is a reality
constructed by men. "Constructed reality" means that man ascribes a
specific meaning to certain situations. Or in the words of Watzlawick:
        'I am in my own reality, just as you are in your own reality. WE
naively assume that there is an objective reality. This is however
incorrect. If you ask me which reality I am in, then I will tell you I
am in the reality constructed by myself, that is, I give to the
situation now and here a specific meaning. If you give this situation a
basically different meaning we then have an interpersonal conflict. Then
the problem starts.'
        On the basis of this idea measures and solutions can be found which
help avoid or eliminate conflicts. Watzlawick discusses these solution
procedures. In [53] we find among other things the following comment:
        '...A good idea, suggested once by the logician Anatol Rapport, would
be for example, if the following procedure were used between the world
powers during all talks: Before the negotiations are started, each
delegation must explain satisfactorily the point of view of the other
delegation to that delegation.
        Thus the Americans ought to try to explain the Soviet point of view to
the Soviets in such a way that the Soviets say: "Yes, that is correct,
that is the way we see things." And then the Soviets have to explain the
point of view of the USA so that the Americans say: "Yes, that is our
point of view." If this were done, presumably half of the problems would
already be solved before they were even discussed." " [53 Paul
Watzlawick, P. M. Perspektive Kommunikation, July 1989.]
        It is interesting to note that the solution offered by Rapport is an
excellent example of a bisimulation!

> In your approach the basic tasks would be definition of observer,
> what makes observer conscious self.

        Let us think and discuss how the Riemannian metric is constructed! How
are the quantities of angle and length knowable? We need to have as
primitives at least two distinguishable quantities or qualities and a
means to compare them. This "means to compare them" is what "clockings
and gaugings" are speaking to! To construct a geometry, Riemannian or
other, we add to these the notion of replication or copying. The
definition of an inner product is this latter, but it must be noted the
there is no unique means to do this "copying" since the means varies
with the medium used! I am reminded of McLuan's dictum "The medium is
the message"!
> [SPK]
> 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.

        And just how are these "Standard conservation laws" enforced? Classical
thinking tacitly assumes action at a distance to enforce conservation
laws. What is going on in the EPR situation? Are the entangled states
"monitored from ABOVE" so that they are not violated? It was Weyl's
consideration of this problem that lead him to his gauge theory! I
remember some "expert" in quantum gravity talking about this, I'll dig
it up. :-) Do you have access to "Conceptual Problems of Quantum
Gravity", Abhay Ashtekar & John Stachel editors, Birkhauser (1988)?
> Instead of assuming that the Universe is a space-time manifold that
> "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.

        No! I just point out that geometries do not precede observation, I am
saying that observations occur in a framing which is geometrical as well
as a transitive ordering that is temporal. Observations are the "giving
of meaning" both in the complementary modes of extension and duration.
Have you ever read Kant's work or Leibnitz?
        When we merely "add' an observer to the existing (prejudiced) paradigm
("picture"), we are compounding the original error. It logical that if
our initial axioms are erroneous so too will be "consistent"

> 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
> says!
> The Chu_8 spaces supposedly have these symmetry groups!
> [MP] Isn't Chu_8 finite space?

        Not necessarily, the 8 represents the value (here 8) of the relation,
as in Chu_2 has a binary (2-ary) relation... (So the entries in the
matrix range over {0, 1, .., 6, 7}) The number of "columns" and "rows"
denotes the number of dimensions of the Chu space. To represent an
infinite dimensional system we use infinite columns and rows. The n-ary
relation is finite only when it is modeled as such. For example Chu_Z
and Chu_C have the infinite sets of integers and complex numbers,
respectively, as the valuation the relation.
> > 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... the
> 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
> new-ageish illusion.

        Absolutely! But your "reality" is *NOT* necessarily mine! If it were we
would not be having this misunderstanding as we would be identical
having identical framings, clockings, gaugings, and histories.
> [SPK]
> > > What about the old mathematical property of transitivity? We either
> > > have a "before" and "after" or nothing at all! To postulate that
> > > existence "began" is a monstrous contradiction!
> [MP]
> > 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
> > recipes.
> 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.

        I just do not see the "how" of your argument. It appears to be
inconsistent with your propositions. :-( The notion that "quantities are
in geometry and qualities are in moment of consciousness" places a
distinction of kind between quantity and quality that is not explained.
I understand, this is an ancient conundrum that was hindered more than
helped by Plato. The main point is that knowledge of either is
impossible with out "comparing" and I am claiming that the act of
"Comparing" is what consciousness and measurements and observation in
general *IS*.
        If we artificially segregate quantities as "a priori synthetics"
(pre-givens) and allow only qualities to be given meaning by
consciousness, we are required to posit a "Platonic Realm" to exists as
the repository of the Absolute Standards of Measure. The problem of
"how" these "standards" are knowable is then given a hand wave
explanation of "noesis", the "mysterious ability to mentally apprehend
these eternal Truths". Please! And these same Platonist have a problem
with duality? :-(
        If we can incorporate noesis into physics, they we eliminate the
problem, and it is this that I am saying that is what Pratt proposes!
> > 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
> meaningless!
> [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
> theory.

        And there is the problem! We *ASSUME* that our knowledge of these
"Platonic realities" can be knowable exactly; how are they falsified in
principle? (I am allowing for us to *approximate* Platonic Ideas up to
\epsilon in finite subjective time, just not exact unique knowledge!)
Just because we can agree that that tree is green and is 20 meters tall
does not necessitate that there exists a "green 20 meter tree" outside
of our communications. All knowledge is "within" communication. We
communicate because we have commonatilies in our sets of *POSSIBLE*
experiences, *NOT* because they are "out there" independent of us. We
are seeing here an example of the Freudian "projection"!
        The notion of yours of selves being composed of subselves lends itself
beautifully to this! The Self is constructed by the interactions (read
bisimulations!) between the subselves. Awakefullness and sleep could be
related to scattering and bound states, maybe... :-)

> > 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 space-time,
> 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
> contingent!
> 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.

        YES! I agree, but notice the subtle implication: "conscious observation
replaces quantum history/objective reality with a new one"! *Whose*
consciousness? If there are an infinite number of possible observers,
there would have to be, by direct logical implication, an infinite
number of "quantum history/objective realities". This is exactly what
Hitoshi is saying! The problem is understanding how it is that these
"realities" relate to each other.
> Was it Haken who talks about Being and Becoming. You try
> to get rid of Being. I keep them both.

        As do I! I am just making it clear that Being in it-self is meaningless
and "void". Could you give me a reference to Haken's work?

> > 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.

        False assumptions must be thrown away. They poison the soup.


>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
>this picture.
        Sure! Why am I so insistent about the importance of Peter Wegner's

> 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
mind 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.

        But do you see the implication?! "Don't look at my finger, look where
it is pointing!"

> Does this theory
> explain passive and active aspects of consciousness? Or is the theory
> able to circumvent basic counterarguments of Chalmers: what
> differentiates
> between matter and mind in so deep manner that we can really call
> mind 'mind' and matter 'matter' and not vice versa?

        It is what they "do" that distinguishes them. Pratt makes it clear! The
"passive and active" aspects are not primitive. We derive them...
> [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
> this picture.

        Why do you think I make a big fuss about Peter's work? It is obvious
that the "classical computationalism" is just a reflection of the tacit
assumptions of classical physics rendered in a different language! We
have "algorithms" instead of "equations of motion"... Peter explains
> > 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 mind
> 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!

        BTW, events determine states, but states give meaning to events. The
local behavior of the LS can alter its "meaning" of a poset of events,
thus it can "change its mind". This allows free will.
> [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
> > differentiates
> > 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
> is silent'.

        This argument is false. I am not saying that consciousness "assign
number to the property like 'silent in the manner calm sea...'", but
the "order" in which this particular experience is given among the
others can be given a number. Also, from the computational point of
view, the proposition "'silent in the manner calm sea in the morning of
early summer is silent'" can be encoded in an infinitely different
number of symbolic languages, of which "numbers" is one!
        The distinction between matter and mind is explained many times in
Pratt's paper. I do not see how you could not see this if you read it

> > > Instead of assuming that there exists some divine entity "out
> > > there"
> > > making sure that Laws are obeyed, why can't we consider that local
> > > logical considerations are necessary and sufficient?
> [MP
> > 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.
> 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.

        YES! This "dissipation" is that I mean by "thermodynamic entropy", it
is the "price paid" for the computation (read simulation) of "what would
it be like to be X", thus I am saying that the selectiveness of a q-jump
is a (Infinite) computation, it compares all possible "given x what
would y be". (this is part of the definition of residuation) Note that
the "possible x's and y's" are a priori existent, this is derived from
the postulate that the Universe is all that could possibly exist. We can
not consistently also say that the Universe is all that *is
experienced*, because experiences are "in time" and the Universe as
Existence in it-self can have no time.
        It looks to me as you are saying that geometries are "preselected",
otherwise, you would not speak of Riemannian geometries as you do. But,
this is just what I am inferring from your words, I could be wrong! :-)
> 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 configuration
> 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.

        I am saying that each experience (being anthropic to be illustrative)
is given by a matching between "some configuration of matterlike and
mindlike dynamical variables". Each experience is ordered subjectively
by the observers clock (its quantum propagator) which is part of this
matching, like the entries in the pay-off matrix of a game.
        Thus each observer has a "time" aspect to its reality. The observation
(to generalize from the anthropic "experience") is an "entire space-time
framing" so, I am agreeing with you in a way. The key difference is that
I do not force "General Coordinate Invariance" to say that all observers
are "embedded in one and the same space-time". To me it means that all
events with in a single act of implication, are organized in a way that
we call General Coordinate Invariance". Thus every observer sees its own
physics and can not say, my reality is absolute! It just looks like that
because I can not see directly "through" your eyes, I can only infer and
simulate what it would be like to "see through your eyes". But the
simulation od the subjective experience are always different, unless we
are just talking about the trivial identity Self = Self.
> > 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
> > consciousness.

        Sure, but we can not be consistent with experimental facts and assume
that this "objective reality" has definite properties independent of
observation. It has all properties simultaneously, not just one
property! Calude's Lexicons demonstrate this in number theory!
        What is "changing" is the knowledge (information content) of the Local
Systems and its dual material configurations, but these are the subsets
of the Universe, not The Universe.

> 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
> meaningfulness.
> "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".
> Initial and final states of quantum jump bring in the comparison.
> Initial unverse and final universe. Moments of consciousness are
> also destruction and creation.

        Yes! I suspect that the "annihilation" and "creation" operators of QFT
can be defined in this way! (I don't know how, though. :-( )
> > 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
> http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/paradox.ps
> [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.
        You are "refusing to look through the telescope"! If it can be
consistently proven that the category of CABAs (page 5 of ratmech.ps,
1st paragraph) can be used to communicate meaning about minds and it can
be put into a one-to-one relation with all properties of a mind, what is
your concern? The "quantity and quality" argument is hollow. Hey, after
all this is just an explanation, a way of making predictions. I can see
how basic organic competitiveness can rear its head, but please, we must
be dispassionate searches. Dogmatism blinds! Our respective models of
the world are our own ways of making sense of our experiences, it is
expected that we have complementary ways of making sense of them.

> [MP]
> > 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.

        Yes... :-(

> 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.

        That would be great! :-)

> 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!
        Perhaps we could set up a video-conference using CU-SeeMee
technology... http://cuseemeworld.com/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:31 JST