[time 652] [time 650] What is Primitive 2

Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Wed, 01 Sep 1999 20:03:00 -0400

Dear Matti,


> > >
> > > [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.
        Could you give us an explicit calculation of an information current?
> 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.
        I find this way of modeling the mind-body problem to be very
complicated! Penrose's one graviton hypothesis explains the same thing
in a simpler way, for example... But, you are applying p-adic TGD to
> 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
> uniquely.


> > 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
> Godlike.
        So, where, ontologically, do the configuration spinors exist? Is God
"within" or "outside" the Universe?
> > 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.

> > > 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.

        The single unchanging Universe allows decomposition into parts that are
not equal to each other, thus can change relative to each other. It
looks like you do not understand the basic concepts of what Hitoshi and
I am proposing. :-(
> > > 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.

        I am thinking of a "distributes network" of many quantum computers, no
one! Each LS is a node or "terminal", the way that LS can be decomposed
makes them representable as whole networks themselves.

> 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.
        Ok, I can agree with this. I just think that there is a lot of detail
that needs to be looked at!
> 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.

        No, I am saying that "basic physics" is computation! I think that it
would help if we could focus our discussion on this question!

> > > 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.
        I do not share your pessimism! Have you ever looked at Lee Smolin's
> > 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.
> > > 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.
        I agree that this is a good thing! :-)
> For instance, the notion of self solved not less than six
> objections.
> 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
> re-epxeriences.
> 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.

        This is great! I just hope that you are not repeating something like
what Tipler did with "Physics of Immortality"!


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