Stephen P. King (email@example.com)
Wed, 01 Sep 1999 14:45:37 -0400
Cutting to the basics...
Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> [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.
Is your Universe the totality of Existence?
> > 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.
How do your selves talk to each other?
> > [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?
It is not forced into such an anthropocentric box. It merely allows it.
> > 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.
Do the possible quantum histories within the Psi_i compete?
> 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.
> > > 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.
> [MP] Note how economical the scenario is: self/observer is
> just heap of observations!
What is an observation?
> > 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.
I am saying that "clocking and gauging" are what an observer does. The
observer is defined in terms of what they observe. Otherwise we are
saying the same thing!
> 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 should we? I am by nature very wary of Theories of Everything! DO
think that one can "expalin everything" with in a single perspective is
"not even wrong"! It is like saying that a map of the entire infinite
totality of existence Universe is constructible in finite time!
> 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,...
Sure, these are example of how the popular technologies of the time are
used as paradigms to make sense of experiences.
> > 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.
I fail to understand your solution! It looks like you just say that TGD
does and do not provide a reasoning chain that others can follow. DO you
really wish for us to agree with you or just believe you? "Trust but
> 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.
Do we really need to combine physics and phychology? You are trying to
put alot of people of of work. It is a property of Nature to specialize!
> > 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
It seems that LSs can only bisimulate other LSs that have equal or less
complexity! So it seems that LSs experience the experiences of their
subLSs somehow, but this is a very delicate question! For example, how
do we experience the "experiences" of our body's cells? Pain is one
thing that comes to mind...
> > > 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.]
Oh, I did not mean to imply that the brain is the only thing involved
in generation the idea of space-times! It is obvious, if we are going to
use this metaphorical line of thinking, that the interaction and
interdependence of the brain and body are involved! But that is really
not my point. I am saying that any observation is framed in spatial and
temporat terms. It was this notion that led Kant to his ideas about
space and time.
> 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.
Yes. But is this really a justification for infering general physics
from particular properties?
> > > 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.
Please be more specific!
> > > 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(;-).
Do you understand my consern? I do not understand your justification!
How can I evaluate your beautiful model if I can not have hope of
understanding it? Please!
> > [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.
Ok, well then how does "locality is lifted to the level of
configuration space of 3-surfaces" avoid the non-locality problem. It
looks to me that it makes it worse! But, umm, since you are mapping
whole 3-surfaces in q-jumps, I think that I can see a glimmer of hope!
:-) I am just not sure how you avoid the problem of defining the norm
uniquely, maybe the p-adics does this for you, but I do not understand
the mechanism. :-(
> [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*.
Are their mathematical objects that are dual to these functionals?
> 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.
Could I post a text file of your Qmind posts on my web site so that all
could look at them easily?
> > "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 have 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.
Yes, because you are not explaining it to me!
> 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 more time you spend working on TGD, the more you will resist giving
it up! This is an example of why people get stubborn as they get older!
The effort and resorces used must be justified to oneself...
> 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.
> > > 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
Could you please at least give me some details or explicit references
so that I can understand your reasoning!
> > > 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.
I agree, it is what is observed that is framed geometrically!
> > > 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.
Thank you! This is the detail that we need to understand you!
> 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.
I will think about this! :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:39 JST