[time 632] Re: [time 631] Re: [time 628] What is Primitive?

Matti Pitkanen (matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi)
Sat, 28 Aug 1999 11:02:23 +0300 (EET DST)

On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:

> Dear Matti,
> Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> snip
> > [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.
> [SPK]
> > 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. :-)
> snip
> > [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.
> snip
> > [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)
> OK.
> snip
> [MP]
> > > '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.
> [SPK]
> > 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.
> Yes!
> > [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"...

The anatomy of quantum jump is Psi_i-->UPsi_i -->Psi_f
The outcome from informational time evolution UPsi_i is nonclassical
in ManyWords sense: it contains me doing macroscopically different thins.
Sipping morning coffee writing this or not writing this, me having become
rich for few months ago and living in luxus apartment and a lot of
Schrodinger cats of course.

 Classicality means that the *final states* Psi_f contains *only* those
spacetime surfaces which represent just what I am doing doing now. The
differences between the spacetime surfaces in superposition represented
tiny quantum fluctuations about which my senses do not give any
information if the hypothesis that all sensory information is
characterized by zero modes. Also the premises of my logical thoughts
could be characterized by the values of zero modes.

Thus sequences of final states of quantum jumps is mapped to
classical states: classical world provides a partial characterization of
quantum state, not only an approximation and we sensorily observe
classical world. This is actually very natural and actually 'a must'
since testing of physical theories reduces to observations about this
classical macroscopic world.

> > 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
> expansion!
It means that each spacetime surface in state Psi_f indeed has same
rest frame so that one can assign to Universe Psi_f unique rest frame.
Actually this statement localizes: one can assign unique rest frames with
all spacetime sheets.

> > 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?

Localization *to* superposition. Initial state UPsi_i is completely
nonclassical as I already described. One function of quantum jump is to
make world classical. UPsi_i provides superposition of
classical opportunities and quantum jump selects
between them. Djinn comes from bottle and fulfills classical wish.

> snip
> > [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!
> snip
> [MP]
> > > 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.
> [SPK]
> > 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".

Quantum measurement replaces clocking and gauging in TGD framework.

Selves decompose to quantum jumps, which are quantum measurements
Pritive act is the quantum jump having interpretation as quantum
measurement. The localization in zero modes
leads to an eigenstate of zero modes just as quantum measurement
must do! Besides this there is measurement of density matrix.

Clocking and gauging require rather intelligent selves: any self
performs quantum measurements routinely!

> Perhaps this quote from Schommers' book (The Visible and Invisible:
> Matter and Mind in Physics, (World Scientific, 1998) pg. 233.) would be
> illustrative:
> "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:

This is of course true: selves build cognitive models of larger
reality using there sensory experiences and by thinking. Their
subselves represent these models. We ourselves are subselves of
larger self and form part of its model about reality.

This is of course not conflict with the assumption that
there exists reality behind our observations: Psi_f. Which however
changes in next quantum jump.

> '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!

This is excellent idea. I like the idea of simulation: my subselves are
certainly doing that, more or less faithfully.

> [MP]
> > 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"!

Here our paths differ: I see the quantum measurement as the solution
of the measurement problem in general. Universe as quantum computer
also measures its state after each quantum computation Psi_i-->UPsi_i
and goes to state Psi_f. Quantum measurement is halting of quantum
computer. You see how physical realism gradually creeps in
computationalism! Once AI people thought that conscious brain can be
understood without the study of living brain.

I think that physical realism forces to take quantum measurement
as the model of measurement and its is remarkable that quantum
computationalism implies this automatically.

Replication and copying emerge as 'macroscopic' constructs: selves can
copy and replicate. DNA selves are excellent example of this. Copying
and replication occur at higher level: at the level of selves which can be
regarded as processes, sequences of quantum jumps, life histories, rather
than particles. The subjective lifehistories of bacteria, processes, are
what replicate. Not compeletely faitfully of course since each self
is sum of selections.

> > [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?

[MP] By symmetries. The connection between conservation laws and
symmetries is perhaps the most beautiful chapter of quantum physics.
And quantum mechanics provides extremely powerful predictions
once symmetry group has been fixed. The power of quantum mechanical
symmetry concept made possible the miracle of particle physics.
Everything becomes discrete and testable: representation theory tells
the dimensions of irreducible unitary representations and then you just
look whether they are realized in nature. Symmetry fixes most general
effective interaction Lagrangian and general form of S-matrix elements,

And standard conservation laws are tested. For twenty years they have
tried to find deviations from standard model symmetries (extensions
of gauge groups from standard model group manifesting themselves
as new particles, etc..). Nothing has been found:
PoincarexSU(2)_LxU(1) xSU(3) which explains everything as far as
symmetries are considered.

> thinking tacitly assumes action at a distance to enforce conservation
> laws.

No. Quantum field theory relies on microlocality and this leads to
divergence problems. In TGD locality is lifted to the level of
configuration space of 3-surfaces: since everything is classical at this
level, divergences are avoided.

> What is going on in the EPR situation? Are the entangled states
> "monitored from ABOVE" so that they are not violated?

EPR entanglement is completely consistent with quantum mechanical
symmetry concept. I see no problem with symmetries. Some people see
the nonlocality as problem. In fact, spacetime nonlocality of EPR
becomes in TGD framework zero mode locality at configuration space level.

> 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)?
> [SPK]
> > 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?

I read book of Leibnitz just accidentally: I was surprises by the
clarity of his thought. He thought much more clearly about
consciousness that those pop scientists in quantum mind.
For instance, he realized passive and active aspects of consciousness.

I am not sure what you mean with 'geometry precedes observation'.
I see geometry as a beatufiul piece of puzzles which must be fit in:
there is not need to carve that piece in any manner to fit
in process of observation: this peace corresponds to quantum

> 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"
> conclusions!

Generalization of existing picture: the notion of single pregiven
objective reality is given up and one ends up with quantum
computationalism. Quantum measurement, classical geometry and its
generalization to infinite-dimensional geometry, unitary time evolution
interpreted as informational time evolution: all these pieces of puzzle
fit in nicely.

> [SPK]
> > 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.

OK. I remember now. Values of matrix are just elements of set without
any other structure: this motivates the notation. The indices label
the elements of the sets A and X defining Chu space and can be

> 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.
> [MP]
> > > 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.
> [SPK]
> > 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.
Of course not. Each self has its own *representation* for Psi_i.

> [SPK]
> > 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*.

I take as quantum measurement the basic model of quantum measurement:
measuring is to have moment of consciousness: make world classical
by localization in zero modes, etc..

Comparing is also part of selves activities: geometric memory provides
prediction for what will occur and occurre and subjective memory
tells what actually occurred: each self compares these memories.
Self probably also can distinguish between its subselves.
But all this is higher level activity in turn making possible higher
level activities like gauging and clocking.

> 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.

One must start somewhere. Hitoshi assume objective reality (phi) as
given, inmutable and uchanging. I assume only the space of quantum
histories given and fixed by mathematical consistency and

You assume Chu spaces, concept of set, etc... Concepts of gauging
and clockin, LS:s.

> 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? :-(

[MP] I have no problems with duality because I simply accept the
difference between quantities and qualities and what has been achieved in
physics. And I even get computationalism, quantum computationalism.

> 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!

> >
> > [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!)

Testing of say symmetries in particle physics reduces to finding
whether particles form multiplets whose dimensions are predicted
by theory. This is extremely simple.

> 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"!

I agree on this of course. Point is that CE tells a lot about what *can be
out there*: fixes the state space of possible objective realities.

This is to me the minimal approach: to assume that quantum jumps
can lead to any objective reality, which is consistent with the
requirement that it exists mathematically. to assume that
one can quantum superpose these possible objective realities, etc..

Configuration space spinors are excellent candidate for this
space of objective realities (remember that generalization of reals
is assumed). Anyone can of course make his/her own guess.

> 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... :-)

> [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.
> 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.

[MP] There is infinite number of selves which form their own
representations about the quantum histories. When selves are defined
in the manner there are now problems
of conscistency. There is no problem of relating them to each other.
Of course, we actually do this relating but this is only to get
improve the representations.

Note that subjective memories of selves make possible also comparisons
of quantum histories. At the top is entire universe
whose infinite subjective memory gets longer quantum jump by quantum

> > 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 references to self organization somewhere in TGD inspired theory
of consciousness. There is long series of books, perhaps published by

> [MP]
> > > 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.

Typically false assumptions are wrong attempts to generalize. For
instance, the naive paradigm of enlargening gauge group
in particle physics. My colleagues used they professional life
with this attempt and earned their academic positions by producing
publications by selecting a Lie group and calculating particle masses
a la Higgs mechanism and finding beta function. There was even a
cook book containing all the basic recipes needed to write this kind of
paper. Of course, today this is not possible anymore.

> snip
> [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.
> Sure! Why am I so insistent about the importance of Peter Wegner's
> work?

> [MP]
> > 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?
> [SPK]
> 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!"

[MP] To be honest, I do not see where it is pointing. I was just happy
to hear that my good friend free will is accepted in company.

> > 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...

Passive and active aspects is indeed deep facet of consciousness. I
was even ready to postulate the concept of phase changing quantum jump
(they can actually occur for 'enlightened' selves having only S=0
subsystems). Only the notion of selves made possible to understand
the passive aspect: in subjective memories free will associated
with measurements of density matrix averages away: assuming
that experience is kind of average over individual quantum jumps
occurred after wake-up.

> snip
> > [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
> this!
[MP] It is fine that we have agreement here. Or do we. I think
that classical computationalism is more or less a model for
logical deduction. Truth preserving manipulation of symbols.
The solution of equations of motion of physics numerically reduces
to this kind of manipulation and certainly was inspiration
of computationalism. Determinism is common aspect of classical
physics and classical computer program.
I would however see classical computationalism
as classical limit of 'cognitive self cascades': at this limit
everything becomes predictable and mechanical.

> [SPK]
> > 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] Is this enough?

> >
> > [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
> carefully.

[MP] This not at all about technicalities. This is about basic
problems of dualism if it wants to model experiences mathematically.
This is about difference between quantities and qualities.

Same problem emerges in moral philosophy (my aim is to write
chapter about quantum ethics and moral). Hume's law states that
values cannot reside in the material world. I agree: they are in quantum
jump as are also qualities.

Deeds are good or bad: not objective realities or their parts. Also
selves can be saints or sinners or something between: they are nothing but
series of deeds.

> > [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.
> [SPK]
> > 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.
> 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)

You must refer to unitary time development U here?

I would see the quantum jump UPsi_i--> Psi_f as halting of the quantum
computation U. It just halts! It is not possible not useful to try
to model the halting as dynamical process. One has however many
constraints on halting.
Halting corresponds to measurement of density for some subsystem of each
sel contained in UPsi_i. Quantum theory tells the probabilities for
various types of haltings inside each self. Strong NMP gives its own
constraings inside each self. Localization in zero modes implies that
halting makes world classical.

>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! :-)

TGD only preselects *possible* spacetime geometries as surfaces X^4(Y^3),
absolute minima of Kaehler action. General Coordinate invariance forces
this preselection. Configuration space geometry is fixed by
infinite-dimensional existence requirement. It cannot be selected
since the set from which one selects contains only one element(;-).

> > 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.
> OK.
> > 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!

[MP] You end up with problems with General Coordinate Invariance because
you want to associate geometric spacetime 'time as process' aspect.
You want to assign to event something mental (state: by this mapping
between mind and matter, which I understood as this payoff matrix).

One the other hand, General Coordinate Invariance is something almost
trivial: it states that physics does not depend on what names are
given for the points of spacetime. This sounds absolute trivial but
its consequences are incredibly strong.

>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.

> 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!

But this is what I have been talking about all the time: quantum jumps
between quantum histories: every observation replaces entire
cosmology with a new one! Could observation have more dramatic effects!!

> 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.
I am a little bit surprised about this hypothesis although I can can
understand Hitoshi's motivations. Universe as given
and unchangeable is basic hypothesis of materialism. And the worst danger
of physical dualism is reduction to materialism.

> [SPK]
> > 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".
> [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.
> Yes! I suspect that the "annihilation" and "creation" operators of QFT
> can be defined in this way! (I don't know how, though. :-( )
[MP] I meant only replacement of Psi_i with Psi_f: Psi_i disappears and
Psi_f emerges to disappear in next quantum jump.

> snip
> [MP]
> > > 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.
> [SPK]
> > 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?

[MP] Here I cannot simply agree. How you can prove that CABs
communicate meaning about minds if you we do not have any generally agreed
view about what mind is. What mind is? Is it even possible to describe its
contents mathematically? This I see as the basic problem.

> 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] I am not dogmatic. I have done enormous work and have been
able to construct theory of physics and consciousness which seems to be
free of the basic paradoxes which plague competing theories even at
philosophical level.

This theory makes very detailed and testable predictions about time in
conflict with common sense thinking: just yesterday I updated explanation
of Libet's experiments from 'self' perspective: it is amazing how these
mysterious results build up a consistent patter. It indeed seems that
body and sensory organs [or possibly nuclei of limbic brain or both
together] are the primary sensory experiencers and cortex only analyzes
and recognizes. Radin-Bierman experiments (already replicated) support the
conclusion that our geometric past changes in quantum jumps. The only
conclusion that I can draw from this that revolution in neuroscience and
brain modelling is unavoidable and forced by experimental data.

This picture is simply and avoidably inconsistent
with monism and dualism and it is also clear how these philosophies
emerges as approximations, and only approximations, when some aspect of
tripartism is neglected. Why should I climb back to the tree(;-)?!
Of course, I am busily trying to invent objections against my approach
and details change all the time.

> snip
> [MP]
> > 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/

Huh! Best manner to proceed would be real conference
in a room with blackboard and a lot of chalk. But this is impossible.
I try to find the files about Kahler action. The postings are on qmind
list but I do not remember the dates.


> Onward,
> Stephen

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