Matti Pitkanen (email@example.com)
Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:51:09 +0300 (EET DST)
> > >
> > > [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?
I told in yesterday posting somehing about communication and sensory
experiencing. This is of course big question and since higher level thing
is in question one can freely imagine many mechanisms.
Leaving telepathy out of consideration, communication between
selves must rely on sensory experiencing. Code of communication
establishes standardized sensory experiences subselves generated by
standardized sensory inputs. Communication is stimulation of standard
subselves. For instances, the word 'subselves' represents my subself.
For instance, spatial and temporal patters of nerve pulses code
for odours. Nerve pulse patterns generate standardized experiences
at neuronal level: these subselves are experienced
by us simply as names for the odours. Subself corresponding
to 'onion' would however really experience something real. I
tend to however think that the odour is experienced by my nose
rather than neurons in brain.
> [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
> 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
[MP] Only the argument showing itse existence.
a) Consider Schrodinger equation as finite-dimensional example: all
that TGD does is to replace Hamiltonian H with Virasoro generator L_0
realized as second order differential operator in configurations space.
b) The probability is conserved. This implies existence of conserved
probability current: this can be deduced by calculating the
change of probabily to exist in some volume delta V. Using Schrodinger
equation one obtains expressions for leakout of probability as
surface integral of the normal component of the spatial
part of probability current: something like
J= 1/m Psi^* Nabla Psi.
Probability density is just R= Psi^* Psi.
dR/dT +Nabla_k J^k
is the the conservation condition for information 4-current.
c) In case of relativistic QM only information current represents
positional information derivable by considering decomposition
of 3-space to small pieces delta V and defining positional information
by Shannon formula
I= SUM p_n log(p_n), p_n= R(x_n)deltaV
One can write this to the form
I= Int R log(R)dV + log(delta V)
The infinite contribution does not depend on state and can be forgotten.
Forgotten or not, it does not contribute to *conscious information gain*
in quantum jump since it cancels in difference I(final)-I(initial).
Thus one has
I= R*log(R) and I^k = log(R)J^k, where J^k is probability current.
d) Similar argument applies in case of infinite-dimensional configuration
space, or so I assume! Time development by L_0 conserves probability,
hence conserved probability current exists. Pinary cutoff makes
it possible to construct infinite number of various information measures
X associated with single 3-surface.
Information current is
I = R* X, I^k = X*J^k R is probability density and J^k is probability
> 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
[MP] TGD is extremely simple and general theory but it predicts
quite a lot of complicated things and Mind is not the simplest
a) Penrose's graviton hypothesis is from the point of view of physics
practically empty. There is however some correct intuition behind it.
TGD provides precise definition for something resembling
Orch OR: in TGD quantum jump the localization in zero modes making
world classical adds to the ordinary quantum measurement additional aspect
which makes quantum jump analogous to Orch Or (in which also selection
between spacetimes occurs). This follows only from the locality of
quantum measurement in zero modes.
P-H hypothesis does not say much about consciousness: it just
states that somehow consciousness is associated with Orch OR. Is it
associated with state evolution or with quantum jump (is there
anything like that or is Orch OR classical evolution is also
an open question). Penrose refused to comment on question is there
free will or not. Not a single word about memory, emotions,
sensory qualia, self-consciousness, thinking.... I
do not wonder why physicists are sceptic about many quantum
consciousness gurus: just saying 'consciousness is BE condensate'
is not enough.
b) In TGD classical gravitational fields can be said
to imply degeneracy of absolute minima of Kahler action: this
spin glass degeneracy caused by classical gravitation
gives precise realization for Penrose's intuition about
superposition of spacetime geometries (which, by the way, is conceptual
impossibility in quantum gravity according to standard QM).
Classical gravitational fields can give rise to gravitonic coherent
states and my first bet is that these might be the quantum correlate of
c) Orch OR is assumed to occur for microtubules only! I wonder how Penrose
can believe that microtubules would be in some special position in World
Order: this is totally in conflict with all principles of theoretical
physics. Well, it is the contribution of Hameroff and I would guess that
Penrose would be happy if he could forget whole microtubule business!
During these years they have got nothing out of it: just the basic
dimensional analysis arguments which conflict common sense expectation:
the time scale for consciousness should be the smaller the larger the
system is. Moon should have much, much more rapid reactions
than human being.
d) There was already years ago experimental data about behaviour of
neutrons in gravitational fields in gravitational fields in conflict with
Penrose's hypothesis. The splitting of neutron wave function in
magnetic field and Earth's gravitational field should lead to Orch OR.
This was roughly the prediction I think and it was not realized.
To put it bluntly, Orch Or is pop science. If someone not so namely
would have suggested something like this, no one had paid a slightest
attention. I must however confess that for 5 years ago or so, I was
personally very enthusiastic about microtubules. We had long discussions
with certain Brazilian biologist and she told me that Penrose-Hameroff is
mere pop science. I could not take her seriously then.
She also told me about work done during century relating to
classical electric fields in communication of monocellulars: the analogs
of nerve pulse and EEG. This work is not known because Brazil is
not in the center of Western world. Having seen that P-H hypothesis has
led to nowhere and having constructed general theory of consciousness,
I have gradually realized that she was absolutely right.
Amusingly, last spring, when working with information theoretic
interpretation of Kahler action. I realized that generation of electric
fields is the manner to generates cognitive resources.
I am not claiming that microtubules are not important: in TGD
framework microtubules and other linear structures serve as
quantum antennas generating coherent states of photons and
as it seems, also of gravitons. But they represent only single level
in hierachy of selves.
> 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
> > At this level we have no time! Infinite "subjective memory" is a
> > 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
So, where, ontologically, do the configuration spinors exist? Is
God "within" or "outside" the Universe?
[MP] In space of configuration space spinors.
The space of configuration space spinors is geometric object,
just like Hilbert space. The space of possible solutions of field
equations, the space of possible objective realities, one could also say.
God is the largest self. There is no need to locate selves or God in any
> > Umm, we should separate ethics from physics. I agree that they
> > not contradict each other, but can we stick to physics (epistemology
> > 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
> > all possible observers! I see each observer having a U as it relates
> > 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
> > > 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"
> > 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
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. :-(
[MP] I understand quite well the basic idea but in your position
I would be ready to reconsider the hypothesis about single unchanging
universe as also the basic hypothesis of dualism. I have by hard
experience found that is much more useful to put basic philosophy under
critical scrutinity than specialize to logical deductions following from
possibly wrong premises. I spent 5 years in attempts to quantize
TGD using functional integral approach, same time I spent with attempts
to geometrize configuration space by starting from naive generalization
of basic formulas, I am ashamed when I remember my first attempts to
define configuration space spinor fields. The blunderous
history of psychological time is its own story. Just few
of months ago I realized that I still did not have completely
correct picture about the identification of
time parameter appearing in time evolution operator U: very
important issue since Poincare invariance was starting point of TGD
but somehow I had repressed this problem from consciousness.
> > > Halting corresponds to measurement of density for some subsystem of
> > > sel contained in UPsi_i. Quantum theory tells the probabilities for
> > > various types of haltings inside each self. Strong NMP gives its
> > > constraings inside each self. Localization in zero modes implies
> > > halting makes world classical.
> > You must look carefully at the undecidability issue involved
> > 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
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
would help if we could focus our discussion on this question!
[MP] I am well aware of your basic hypothesis. You might be right.
But I cannot contribute much here.
> > > One the other hand, General Coordinate Invariance is something
> > > 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
> > "meanings" of the events "inscribed" therein! GCI is like saying that
> > all observers will see "something", but does not give any clues as
> > 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
[MP] Yes. I read the paper. He demonstrated a possible hole in
'no time argument' and he had very similar picture
as you have about physics as computing. His suggestion for discrete
evolution of spin networks resembles quantum jump picture but he assumes
it to be a discretization of Schrodinger evolution and deterministic
(he notes the possibility that determinism might be violated, I
do not know whether he refers to possible description of quantum jump
> > 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
> > 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
> [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
> > > tripartism is neglected. Why should I climb back to the tree(;-)?!
> > > Of course, I am busily trying to invent objections against my
> > > 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
> 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.
This is great! I just hope that you are not repeating something
like what Tipler did with "Physics of Immortality"!
[MP] Noble failure is better than inhonest victory. BTW, I participated
to the discussion group about ideas of Tipler. I started very
undiplomatically (without knowing that Tipler's vision requires Big
Crunch) by telling that expanding cosmology is what data suggest
and TGD predicts. This was not greeted with enthusiasm.
We had however fine discussions until Hubble data came and destroyed
the discussion group. Tipler's approach was based on
classical computationalism and for some reason Big
Crunch was very important for it to work.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:39 JST