[time 649] Re: [time 631] What is Primitive?

Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Wed, 01 Sep 1999 02:58:03 -0400

Dear Matti et al,

        I am writing this over several sittings...
> On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:

> > > [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.

        Is it true that if we have many partly disjoint observers (not all see
the exact "same" realities), we need to define separate UPsi_i for each?
> 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.

        Ok, but how would the existence of many observers affect this argument?

> 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.
        I am thinking that the "classical world" as per Newton et al, is a
complete fiction! All that is observed is that a large but finite system
of interacting observers can agree upon, up to \epsilon of course. (the
finiteness of the \epsilon is directly related to the finiteness of the
system!) There would then be some relation between the value of the
Planck constant and the "size" of the visible cosmos!
> > > 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.
        I see Universe Psi_f as one of many within an equivalence class as each
observer has its own "unique rest frame". The problem is in the
assumption that because their exists an equivalence class of observers,
it does not follow that one can smoothly transform one observer into
another. In fact gravity manifests as the inability to integrate the
patch of space-time associated with one observer's rest frame with
> > > 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.
        At what price? "There is no such thing as a free lunch!" I see the
q-jump as a tournament between the possibilities! It is interesting to
note that the number n of pair's of "matches" needed in the tournament
is \upperbound Log_2 n + \Remainder_2 n. This comes from the question
"how many steps does it take for a given number of ladies to gossip such
that each ends up knowing what others know and they can only communicate
in pairs (no "conference calls")".
        My point is that communication requires either a non-zero number of
steps (time) or a non-zero amount of energy (to create a "conference
call"). I see the energy needed to unify the particle symmetries as an
example of the latter! We are getting ourselves into the problem of
defining a time operator! This is a highly non-trivial problem!
> > > [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 gaugeing in TGD framework.

        So would you agree that they are equivalent?
> Selves decompose to quantum jumps, which are quantum measurements.

        Yes, this follow the same pattern of the decomposition of Local

> 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.

        Could we elaborate on this! What is a density matrix?! Have you read
the Aharonov-d'Espagnat discussion?

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

        I do not agree! Your definition of a "self" is far to anthropocentric!
Self-awareness emerges when we have "quantum measurement of quantum
measurements", but clocking and gauging are primitive acts! They are the
essence of quantum measurement! We see this when we consider what a
measurement *is*.

> > 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.

        Yes! Self-awareness emerges when we have "quantum measurement of
quantum measurements"...
> 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.
        The key question is" Is this "reality" unique and absolute?! How could
this be knowable?! We must consider the "other minds" problem!

> > 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.

        Yes, thus I am thinking that interactions among LSs is best modeled by
bisimulations! The "faithfulness" issue is VERY important! The idea of
mutation is very much implicit! This relates directly to the idea of
"forgetfulness" in Chu spaces! In the involution transform Mind_i ->
Body -> Mind_f (and its dual Body_i -> Mind -> Body_f), if the initial
and final states (events) are not exactly the same we get
mutation/motion! (In the gene configuration space for biological
organisms, or in the configuration space for LSs!)
> > > 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.

        Sure! But that is not my issue! How is it that a brain can generate an
idea of a space-time framing of its states? Remember, then you look at
the "world" you can only be aware of your brain's version of it. It is a
"virtual reality"! We simply can not "see" that is "out there". Why do
you insist?!!
> 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.
        Please explain "physical realism". Is it the idea that the world that
is observed and we can communicate coherently about is "out there" and
that there exists a one-to-one isomorphism between our "internal" images
and "it"?
> 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.

        Yes, this agrees with what I said above... But as to it being strictly
"'macroscopic'", I would like to see this justified!
> > 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,
> etc...

        Sure, I understand this, but it does not answer my question. My
question relates to the "once symmetry group has been fixed" part! How
is it "fixed"?! You say: "...then you just look whether they are
realized in nature"! What does "look" mean?! Yes, I am splitting
ontological hairs, but that is the whole point! If we are going to
assume that the properties of objects are a priori givens, we are merely
begging the question asked by a philosopher long ago: "Why do we observe
this world rather than another?"
> 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.
        And this is covered by my statement that "we can communicate coherently
(up to \epsilonics of error) only to the degree that our local realities
agree". We, as observers, seem to have Poincare x SU(2)_L x U(1) x SU(3)
in common within the way our posets of observations *can* be ordered,
but that does not prove that is *all* that *could* be given by
construction! The existence via CE of other symmetry group combinations
is being neglected to our peril! :-(

> >Classical
> > 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.
        Ah, "microlocality"! Indeed! And what is that? Do you mean
"microcausality"? See:
> > What is going on in the EPR situation? Are the entangled states
> > "monitored from ABOVE" so that they are not violated?
> [MP]
> 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.

        But, Matti, you must understand that since we do not understand the
basic notions of TGD (Kahler action, cognitive spacetime sheets, etc.),
we do not understand your reasoning. If we can not understand your
reasoning, how do you expect us to believe what you say. Are we just
going to have to have "blind faith" that you are correct? I don't think
> > > [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.

        What is the reference?
> 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
> measurement.

        "geometries do not precede observation"!!!!!!!!! Geometries are *how*
events are related to each other within the contents of an observation.
It is a very serious mistake to assume that the geometries are
pre-selected prior to the act of observation. You are clinging to the
vanishing sugar cube of "naive realism" that is being eroded by the
waves of experimental verification of such things as the EPR effect, the
delayed choice, the quantum erasure, etc.
> > 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.
        So you say, and I agree! But the retainment of an a priori "geometry"
instead of working with the notion that observation constructs its
geometry via selection from a set of *all possible* geometries. This
parallels how the neuronal relations of the brain are culled from an
initial set of many, e.g. we learn by restricting what X can be, by
negation of contrafactuals.
> > > 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
> continuous.

        Yes. It is in when we start manipulating these matrices using the usual
matrix algebra that all the neat properties drop out!

> > 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.
> > > 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.

        Yes, and thus each self has its own geometry (defined by its own
triangle inequality)! (I see this by considering a "self" and its
"world" as a pair of points in the space of possibilities. This follows
from my assumption that the self-world relation is symmetric, e.g. when
I observe my world, my world observes me back.)
> > > 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..

        Sure! I just fail to understand what "zero modes" are... :-(
> 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.

        Umm, see above! One thing that I see is that you do not see the
geometric memory (gm) and the subjective memory (sm) as having a
symmetrical relation as I do! The gm and sm as definable as a
bisimulation pairing! What is important is to realize that an observer
always have their observables framed in geometrical terms, thus the
geometry is "the way an observer observes its reality"!
> > 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 unchanging. I assume only the space of quantum
> histories given and fixed by mathematical consistency and
> infinite-dimensionality.

        This only applies the the whole of the Universe! Read the paper!
> You assume Chu spaces, concept of set, etc... Concepts of gauging
> and clockin, LS:s.
        I am trying to extend Hitoshi's theory to model how LSs
interact/communicate with each other!

> > 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.

        Sigh, ok.
> > > [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.
        Sure, but we forget that we prejudice our observation by the very
construction of the equipment used to do this "finding whether particles
form multiplets whose dimensions are predicted by theory"! We can not
separate the "object" of measurement from the measurement itself! This
was a main point of Bohr...

> > 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.

        What!? Sure, it defines the equivalence class of possible objective
PARTICULAR OBSERVER! That is that my computation notion is all about!
The particular properties of an observation are defined by the very act
of observation and this includes the space-time geometry that is
entailed in the relative distances and durations among the events within
the observation.
        I am saying that "what is experienced" by an observer, the very qualia
that are experienced, are not a priori givens as they are "actuals",
they are only related to a particular set of other qualia in that moment
or, put another way, an event only has a particular antiset of states
that it impresses within the context of a finite antiset of states that
can infer its prior occurrence. See the definition of mind-body
interactions in ratmech.ps pg. 3, first paragraph.
        This limits each observers experiences by demanding that each new
experience not contradict its previous ones. When we presume that
experiences are "preordained", we have to resort to supernatural, or at
least unfalsifiable metaphysics, to justify the assumption. Do you see
what I mean?
> 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..

        Sure, this gives necessity but not sufficiency! It is necessary that
"objective realities" exist, but it is insufficient for the definition
of meaningfulness of these "objective realities". This is like saying
that the symbol string "^&*^*(&()^$^%$#^&^*()&&(HGBIHG&*()Y
HIOG*(){JMOLH^&TR){J(P&^Y" exists atemporaly, but its "meaning" can only
be known by a process that dissipates a nontrivial amount of free
energy, thus "in time"!
> 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.

> > > 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.

        Yes, and how you model the communications among them?
> 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
> jump.
        At this level we have no time! Infinite "subjective memory" is a bound
state! It never changes, it dissipates no free energy! It is frozen.
Zero temperature!

> > > 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
> Springer.
        I will try to look for it...
> > > > 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.

        Yes. I agree. We need intuition to help us bridge the gap between
theoretical constructions and experience. We need a way to predict that
we might experience in these situations, as in high velocity travel,
teleportation, etc.
> > 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.

        Ok... I need you to elaborate on this... I do not know how you define a
density matrix; what are the entries, etc. ... ?
> > > [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.
        Do you understand "coinduction"?
> > [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?

        Yes! I need to explain why, but I don't have time to right now. Please
press me to explain this!

> > > [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.
        Umm, we should separate ethics from physics. I agree that they should
not contradict each other, but can we stick to physics (epistemology and
ontology) for now?
> > > [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 think so... I just do not see that there is a single operator U for
all possible observers! I see each observer having a U as it relates to
its own clocking and gauging propagator; its own time and space.
> 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.

        Sure, but there is more than one such computations "going on" and the
outputs of some are inputs for others!

> 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.
        You must look carefully at the undecidability issue involved with
halting! Not only do we have many Local Systems engaged in trying to
predict their halting probability but also taking side bets with each
other as to who will halt first! :-) This is the concurrency game!

> >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(;-).
        I do not follow what you are saying! I only understand the last
sentence... :-( I really would like to understand how you get a
singleton! The only singleton I can think of is Existence itself, and it
has no particular metric or scalar product or topology, etc.! I am
missing something! :-(

> > > 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.

        Ah, but notice that the "names [that] are given for the points of
space-time" are the very things that observation attaches. They are the
"meanings" of the events "inscribed" therein! GCI is like saying that
all observers will see "something", but does not give any clues as what
that might be. This is what "clockings and gaugings" do!
> > 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!!

        I agree completely!
> > 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.
        I do not understand your objection to the notion that Existence in
it-self is by necessity a priori ("given") and unchanging! The
identification of the Universe, as the totality of all that exists,
follows naturally... It is "experiences", qua the qualia of observation,
that are not a priori givens as they must be experienced. One can not
affirm the experience that X is a green tree without having the
experience of X being a green tree. The possible is not the actual!
Otherwise this is equivalent to saying that particle \alpha has a
particular position or momentum without making a measurement of \alpha!
> > [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.

        Does Psi_i "stop existing"? Or is it merely no longer actual to some
observer? I am thinking of the quantum Zeno effect as a way to vary

> > > > 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 CABAs
> 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.
        Well, I will not dispute the fact that it is very hard to define "what
a mind is", but we can put forth hypothesis that can be falsified! Some
would say that mathematics itself is a pure expression of Mind! So if we
can categorize mathematics itself, we are, equivalently, categorizing
Mind! See Pratt's paper: The Stone Gamut:

> > 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.

        I do not intend to denigrate the obvious effort that you have put into
your work! It is very valuable to me, as I understand it now. I would
like to understand it better, thus I ask very hard questions! I wish to
follow your reasoning.
> 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.

        We must be careful that we are not engaging in fallacies of non causa
pro causa and limited (or false) alternatives!
> 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.

        How do you reach this conclusion? Can you explain your reasoning here
for us? If you wish for us to agree with your model of our common
reality, you are required to help us understand it! Can we see some
examples of your "objections against my approach"?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:38 JST