[time 650] Re: [time 649] Re: [time 631] What is Primitive?

Matti Pitkanen (matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi)
Wed, 1 Sep 1999 14:45:32 +0300 (EET DST)

On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:

> Dear Matti et al,
> I am writing this over several sittings...
> > On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
> [MP]
> > 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?

[MP] In TGD approach UPsi_i represents the state of entire Universe
after dispersion from single sector D_p to all sectors of configuration
space: Djinn has just left the bottle. In practical modelling
one of course cuts the universe to single self and forgets the rest.

> > 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?

In TGD each self is observer and each UPsi_i decomposes
into infinitely many selves. Each self behaves like its own
sub-Universe. Therefore existence of many observers does not
affect the argument in no ways. Actually, it took quite
a lot of effort to find the proper form of strong NMP localizing
appropriately and only the concept of self solved the
problem finally.

> > 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!
But is also mathematics fiction? We are doing mathematics and regard is
as very real. In TGD the space of quantum histories IS the mathematics:
there is no difference between theory of physics and physics.
Quantum jumps bring in the living mathematician. This
of course is against the dualist view about theories and reality
as separate things.

What is observed is finite but everything is not observed!
Mathematics is much more than the theorems we can prove.

For universes with overcritical mass density there
is relation between size of cosmos and Planck length.
Hubble data seem however to conform that universe is subcritical
and infinite and expanding. What is nice is that global
topology of universe manifests itself in the local
properties of universe (mass density).

> [MP]
> > 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
> another's!

The need to transform observers to each other seems to be
the special feature of LS theory reflecting the attempt
to geometrize mind, OK?. In TGD there is no need for
mapping selves to each other. In fact the idea of transforming DNA self to
human self would be non-sensical: Human self can containg somehing like
10^17 of DNA selves!

Presumably LS approach assumes kind of hierarchy of
intelligences such that observers with different IQ cannot trasnformed
to each other smoothly, correct?

> [MP]
> > 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!"

[MP] Dualism is the price but I am tripartist.

 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")".

[MP] I am afraid that the modelling of quantum jump as tournament or
process could lead to problems. I do not believe that this kind of
modelling is consistent with what we know about quantum jump. How to cope
with Bell's inequalities is the problem. Everything else
in quantum mechanics, even quantum entanglmeent
at the level of configuration space, can be regarded as
classical, but not quantum jump.

I understand the need to model the quantum jump when one
believes in dualism: accepting the quantum jump as it is and adding
to the dualism gives tripartism.

> 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!
> snip
> [MP]
> > Quantum measurement replaces clocking and gaugeing in TGD framework.
> So would you agree that they are equivalent?

No. Quantum measurement is much more general and primitive concept and
clocking and gauging are higher level operations involving
the concept of self (observer!) in an essential manner.

> > Selves decompose to quantum jumps, which are quantum measurements.
> Yes, this follow the same pattern of the decomposition of Local
> Systems!

[MP] Note how economical the scenario is: self/observer is
just heap of observations!

> > 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?
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9803018
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9804063
> Also see:
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9812011
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9806050
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9802019
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/quant-ph/1/density/0/1/0/all/1/0
> > 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*.
[MP] You agree that clocking and gauging require observer. But
observer is self. The idea about self-awareness as
quantum measurement of quantum measurement does not make sense to
me. Reflective level of consciousness could be identified
either the fermionic contribution to conscious experience
or as pure self awareness in contrast to the contribution
of the experiences of subselves of self to experience:
my thoughts are my subselves.

The definition of self could not be more general! It sounds almost
trivial in its generality: self as sub-system behaving effectively as
p-adic sub-universe. Not a single word about brain or biosystems! Self as
subsystem allowing description using pure quantum state.

Why I like Buddhist ideas is not detailed assumptions but similar
generality: the Westner models for brain and consciousness
are extremely culture biased: few centuries ago brain was
clockwork, then it was hydrodynamical system, then it became
computer, some regard it as a hologram,...

> [MP]
> > 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"...

[MP] I would not speak about quantum measurements of meausurements.
This makes sense in dualistic framework were quantum measurement
is just dynamical process but not in quantum framework.
I would rather speak of subselves as collections of quantum measurements
such that these collections become units in the experience
of self: many to one is the basic idea of abstraction.

> > 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!
> http://members.home.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/othermind.html

One of the first victories of TGD approach was solution to the other minds
problem, which I understand as problem about why we do not
have direct access to other minds. Actually we have access
to our subselves: we experiences their lifehistories as
our thoughts, mental images, sensory experiences.
We do not have direct accces to the mind of selves at the same
level as us or to subselves of other selves not to mind
of higher level selevs.

In fact, split brain patients are good test for any theory of
consciousness. I have not yet checked thoroughly whether the little
I know about this topic is certainly consistent with the concept
of self.

> [MP]
> > 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!)

[MP] I already wondered whether you have hierarchy of LSs such
that bisimulation is possible only for LSs at same level of
hierarchy. Do LSs experience the experiences of their subLSs

> [MP]
> > 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 am not at all sure that brain only generates the idea of spacetime.
 I cannot yet exclude the possibility that also my body contributes
to my consciousness and primary sensory experiences occur at
the level of sensory organs. This hypothesis explains elegantly
Libet's experiments showing that subjective experience of skin stimulation
occurs about 1/2 seconds before the neural activity in sensorimotor
cortex. [Also the location of experience at level of brain nuclei could
do this.]

Cognitive processing certainly occurs dominantly in brain but again
TGD suggests that also organs and even skin possess some genuine
intelligence: there are experimental claims about this. Hearthmath
homepage contains something about intelligence of heart.
Also eyes seem to perform cognitive processing as I learned
some months ago (article in Nature or Science?)

For instance, proprioception might be occur in
body. Brain would only cognitively process this
experience. The situations in which patient loses his body
experience could be explained simply as dissociation of
bodily and brainy self to separate parallel selves.
This would mean that we basically directly experience
the 3-space, brain only analyzes this experience.

> > 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"?

Physical realism boils down to experimental tests. The
Bell inequalities state this kind of test. If the world
is classical in the sense that quantum jump is modellable
by a process, this can be seen experimentally. Aspen
experiments demonstrated that Bell inequalities hold true
and therefore modellability hypothesis is excluded.

> > 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!

Justification comes only from explanatory power and ability to survive

> snip
> [SPK]
> > > 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! :-(

To the possible peril or glory of the theory predicting that this
symmetry structure is very special physically and mathematically.
Here I cannot never sigh of relief(;-).


> [SPK]
> > >Classical
> > > thinking tacitly assumes action at a distance to enforce conservation
> > > laws.
> [MP]
> > 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:
> http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/ti_over/node7.html
> http://physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/faq.html
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9805008

Microcausality and microlocality are essentially the same thing.

> [SPK]
> > > 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
> so!

[MP] I am not expecting that you believe blindly what I say.
If you want to learn basic maths of TGD it is quite possible.

The locality in configuration space means
only that physical states are described by
*classical* configuration space spinor fields which are
*functionals of 3-surface*.

If I were to second quantize
these fields, physical states would become nonlocal with respect
configuration space. I would construct manyfermion states
with fermions located at different points of configuration
space (3-surfaces), etc..

Since QFT states correspond to states of field theory in fixed spacetime,
the values of configuration space spinor field for given 3-surface
are counterparts of states of quantum field theory.

Qmind files contain more detailed description of this.

> [MP]
> > 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?

No idea. I was waiting train in cafe selling old books. I
took the liberty of reading this thin but extremely attractive
book about Leibniz monadism and spend enjoyable hour.

> > 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 piece 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.
> WHY?

Well you state your belief very strongly. Explanatory power
and internal consistency of the
theory is the only criterion for our beliefs.

And as I hjave explained many times, observation
UPsi_i-->Psi_f selects very few classically equivalent
spacetime surface from the huge superposition represented
by UPsi_i. But somehow you fail to see this.

TGD of course reproduces EPR effect, delayed choice, etc..
I would not spend an hour with TGD if it would not.
The analysis of these experiments involves in essential
manner the approximation about pre-existing spacetime
but this is not essential. What matters are the
basic rules of quantum mechanics: quantum jump as something
irreducible, Born rule, the basic rules for constructing
many particle states by tensor product construction.

The question is about what *new* effects TGD predicts.
Libet's experiments, which I discussed in earlier posting
and Radin-Bierman experiment are examples of these new effects
and find nice explanation in terms of new time concept.

> [MP]
> > 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.

[MP] I agree completely. In infinite-dimensional context however the
set of all possible geometries reduces to a set containing single

> [MP]
> > 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!

[MP] I have no idea about the physical interpretation of the matrix
K associated with Chu pair.

> [MP]
> > 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.)

In TGD self has not geometry: only the information contents of conscious
of self can be *approximately* located to cognitive spacetime sheet.

> [MP]
> > 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... :-(

[MP] Zero modes are somewhat technical concept, explained
in qm postings. Configuration space has fiber space structure.
Fiber corresponds to the quantum fluctuating degrees of freedom
in which metric is nontrivial. Propagator is actually contravariant
metric, which shows how beautifully everything geometrizes.
 One functionally integrates
over them just as in QFT.

In zero modes metric of configuration space is trivial: line element just
vanishes. There are now quantum fluctuations in these degrees of

Zero modes characterize size, shape and classical Kahler fields
of spacetime surface. They characterize what we are used to call classical
physics. Quantum jump indeed involves localization in zero modes
so that every final state of quantum jump is classical in well defined

Zero modes are purely TGD:eish feature and derive from the
fact that particles are not more point like. They are absent
in QFT. In string models they emerge as so called moduli characterizing
the conformal equivalence classes of metrics for string world

Zero modes make it possible to unify classical physics with
the physics of quantum field theories. Fiber<--> quantum field theories.
Base (zero modes)<-->classical physics.

> > 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"!

They are not symmetric. There is only the correspondence
of structures in accordance with Ontogeny recapitulates
About 'What is important...' I disagree but this is hardly news anymore!

> [SPK]
> > > 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.
> [MP]
> > 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!

[MP] This is just what I said.

> > 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!

> [MP]
> > 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...

Particle physics is application of quantum theory and in particle
physics this in ability to separate the object of measurement
ofrom measurement is of course central. But this has nothing to
do with the spectrum of quantum numbers.

> [MP]
> > 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

[MP] Certainly it does not do this. It only determines
the set from which to select.
Quantum jump involving quantum measurement of density matrix
and volition as selection of degenerate absolute minima enters
into the game here.

> 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.

[MP] In the role of devil's advocate I would strongly encourate
to test whether the reduction of quantum jump to computational process
is reallt consistent with Bell inequalities.

>From my point of view your approach would be like
trying to represent quantum computation as classical

> 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.
> Sure!
> snip
> >
> > [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?

[MP] Communication at microscopic, CP_2 time level reduces to
informational time development. Selves generate no p-adic entanglement
during time evolution U lasting for infinite time (nothing to do with
psychological time). Only final state is unentangled and only p-adically.
This allows information flows between selves and formation
of cognitive representations about other selves.
One can calculate information currents etc.. and assign
information gains of various types to various selves.
This is fundamental but not very practical level.


At the level of classical spacetime surface the communication
can be seen as a formation of geometric cognitive representations.
Cognitive spacetime sheets interact with physical ones and
their behaviour reflects the behaviour of material spacetime
sheets. Wormholes mediate classical gauge fields
between spacetime sheets.

At the macroscopic level of selves communication can be simply
seen as sensory experiencing. Good working hypothesis is
that various sensory experiences are determined by location
in zero modes characterizing classical world and that
various macroscopic quantum phases quantum correlating
with qualia are determined by the location more or less

> > 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!

In Hitoshi's theory it never changes. In TGD entire universe is subject
to evolution. God is not something Godgiven, it envolves more and more

> [MP]
> > 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.
> snip
> [SPK]
> > > It is what they "do" that distinguishes them. Pratt makes
> > > it clear! The
> > > "passive and active" aspects are not primitive. We derive them...
> [MP]
> > 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. ... ?

It would take too much time and space. I hope I could remember
earlier postings, where I explaind 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"?
> (http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/groups/tatami/handdemos/doc/coind.htm)

[MP] Yes the idea became clear form earlier discussions.

> [SPK]
> > > 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] 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.
> Ok...
> > 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 talking about consciousness theory. Consciousness theory must
be able to say something about ethics also and must be able to find
quantum correlates for ethics and moral.

> [MP]
> > 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!

[MP] It is so economical to speak just one quantum computation
decomposing into sub quantum computations (selves).
But you philosophical preassumption about single unchanging universe
does not allow this.

> > 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!
[MP] We are working with quantum computer.
In quantum computation the entire quantum computation becomes
purely physical process, something analogous done by the reading
head of the Turing machine.
Quantum computation described by U last infinite
time: it does not make sense to speak about halting in finite
time(;-). To speak seriously, quantum computation halts by its very
nature. There is no line in program code telling when to halt. U is just
part of quantum jump which occurs including the halting.

My basic objection against computational
approach is that you try to apply it to basic physics.
I regard classical computation as something emerging at very
high level when selves begin to model the world and
build simulations of physics. At this level it makes sense
to speak about halting probabilities.

> [SPK]
> > >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! :-)
> [MP]
> > 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! :-(

I have explained the arguments related to the existence of Riemann
connection, divergence problems, etc.. and how assumption of
infinite-dimensional isometry group solves these problems and
fixes the Kahler geometry uniquely. The qmind files explain
this in more detailed form.

> > [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).
> Yes!
> > 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!

[MP] Fact is that GCI implies basic predictions of GRT and entire
structure of gravitational theory including even basic dynamical
principle. Without GCI one must start from scratch.
Conscious beings certainly give names to things but this is
different activity having nothing to do with Riemann geometry.

> snip
> [SPK]
> > > 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!
> [MP]
> > 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!
> [SPK]
> > > 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.
> [MP]
> > 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] The problem is that mathematical description of change becomes
tricky and there is no hope of forcing this kind of assumption
to the TGD:eish formalism. In GRT this would be the case
since time disappears from the formalism. One victory
of TGD is the solution to this paradox of GRT.

> snip
> [SPK]
> > > 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
> this!

[MP] It is no longer contribution to conscious experience.


> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9611020
> http://physics.hallym.ac.kr/education/cornell/ardlouis/dissipative/Quantum_Zeno.html
> snip
> [SPK]
> > > 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:
> http://boole.stanford.edu/chuguide.html#gamut
> >
> > [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!
> http://members.home.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Logic1.html
> > 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"?

[MP] I do not require you to agree with my view about reality!
I want just to compare. For rather selfish purposes(;-)! I want
to relate my approach to computationalist approach and see
what parts of it come from quantum approach. It is fine
if my counter arguments help to develop the dualistic approach.

For instance, the notion of self solved not less than six

a) How the notion of psychological time and its arrow emerge
from the theory: earlier approach was almost correct but
localization in zero modes and drift of cognitive spacetime
sheets were still missing from this picture.

b) How one can understand memories about previous conscious
experience as *genuine* memories rather than only simulated

c) How can one understand the passive aspects of conscious experience
(sensory experience,etx..) if single quantum jump seemingly
involving selection determines the contents of conscious experience?

d) How can one achieve objectivity of sensory expeirences, if
each quantum jump replaces universe with a new one: the progress
resulted from the observation that weaker concept of objectivity
defined as quantum statistical concept is probably enough.

e) How can one understand binding: the earlier model
for binding was actually for sensory experience*r*s,
not experiences! Summation hypothesis for sensory experiences
leads to the hierarchy of selves.

f) Is there any hope of understanding how universe can understand
itself and construct a theory about itself. Hierarchy of selves
and infinitely long subjective memories gives good hopes of this.

> Onward,
> Stephen

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:39 JST