**stephen p. king** (*stephenk1@home.com*)

*Wed, 08 Sep 1999 13:59:41 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 715] Re: [time 710] Re: [time 709] FTL propagations"**Previous message:**stephen p. king: "[time 713] Re: [time 707] Symmetry => Dynamics"

Hi All,

I am trying to understand Matti's Strong NMP idea. He gives a

definition:

From: http://members.home.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/MattiQMind.htm

"Strong NMP says that in given quantum state=quantum history the

quantum jump corresponds to a subsystem-complement pair for which the

*entanglement entropy reduction in quantum jump is maximal*.

The first interpretation coming in mind is that the conscious

experiences is such that the information gain is maximal. Perhaps a more

natural interpretation is that entanglement entropy tells how

interesting, 'catchy', the conscious experience is and only the most

interesting experience is actually experienced."

Now, we first need to understand what "entanglement entropy" is! Does

it have to do with "quantum entropy" re: "value of quantum entropy gives

you the upper limit for how much information you can recover from a

quantum particle or collections of them."

http://www.aip.org/physnews/preview/1997/qinfo/sidebar2.htm

also, this ties to Bill's event horizon thinking! :)

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9811122

I think that the determination of which "subsystem-complement" pair has

the minimal quantum entropy is given by a tournament of games "played"

between the pairs. The winner of the tournament is the quantum state

that is the most informative. I see the "tournament" as modelable by a

periodic gossiping on graphs formalism.

http://www.cs.wvu.edu/~chif/cs418/1.html

The main ideas presupposes that "subsystem-complement" pairs can

communicate with each other. I suspect that this follows some thing like

this: Subsystem A <-> Complement B, Subsystem B <-> Complement A. If the

complement of subsystem A is subsystem B and the complement of subsystem

B the subsystem A, then subsystems A and B have identical entanglement

entropy or information.

Now, what is a given pair of subsystems do not have complete

agreements, but do share some information? (I see "information sharing"

as the existence of identical configurations in the configuration space

of each subsystem, following the logic that "identical configurations

encode identical information".) Can we model how, given an initial

common information, a pair of subsystems can evolve such that they

become equivalent? This is what happens in the periodic gossiping

situation, so I suspect that it may be useful.

The problem that I have is that I do not know how to show this

mathematically! Can you help me? :-)

Later,

Stephen

**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 715] Re: [time 710] Re: [time 709] FTL propagations"**Previous message:**stephen p. king: "[time 713] Re: [time 707] Symmetry => Dynamics"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:40 JST
*