**Hitoshi Kitada** (*hitoshi@kitada.com*)

*Sat, 11 Sep 1999 20:27:00 +0900*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 746] Re: [time 744] Re: [time 727] Re: My Paradigm Shift"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 744] Re: [time 727] Re: My Paradigm Shift"**Maybe in reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 727] Re: My Paradigm Shift"

[HK]

Dear Matti,

Thank you for your explanation and responses. I will confine this time to the

following points:

Matti Pitkanen <matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote:

Subject: [time 743] Holy trinity summarizes the mathematical structure of

quantum TGD

[HK]

Dear Matti, Lance, Stephen et al.,

To me three kinds of time of Matti look like a taxonomy of phenomena.

Matti, do you have any relations between these three times?

[MP] These three times emerge automatically from the basic

structure of theory. They are by no means assumed in ad hoc manner.

Holy trinity basically follows from 'holy trinity' of

a) General Coordinate Invariance,

b) existence of Poincare invariant and GCI S-matrix and

c) existence of classical physics, not as approximation, but

exact part of quantum theory. The existence of classical

physics actually follows from the definition of configuration

geometry in GCI invariant manner so that

*it is basically Poincare invariance and GCI which lies behind holy

trinity!*

At least for me it was shock to realize how enormously forceful

principle GCI is when combined with spacetime as 4-surface idea.

Here are some details.

a) *General Coordinate Invariance* makes impossible to define

state as t=constant snapshot. States are configuration space

spinor fields in entire configuration space consisting of 3-surfaces

in M^4_+x xCP_2 with all possible values of lightcone proper time.

Thus the phrase "quantum history".

Quantum histories would be the description of manyworld enthusiast for the

entire universe: I think we know that this approach does not lead to any

understanding of consciousness and splitting of worlds is at least to me

intolerably ill defined concept.

b) Quantum jumps between quantum histories occur.

This sequence of quantum jumps is subjective time development and

subjective

time is measures as quantum jumps occurred after say wakeup of some self.

Quantum jumps *CANNOT* occur just as

Psi_i-->Psi_f-->...

This would be totally inconsistent with which we know about quantum

field theories which summarizes the predictions of the theory. Rather,

each quantum jump involves unitary 'time' development acting

in the space of quantum histories.

Psi_i-->UPsi_i -->Psi_f,

U =exp (iL_0(tf-ti)),

tf--> infty, tf-->-infty.

[HK]

Here what is your L_0? It seems a Hamiltonian of some system, but what system

are you referring to by L_0? If it is the system, say L, corresponding to the

state Psi_i (and I assume it is the same system as for Psi_f), the jump

UPsi_i --> Psi_f

must occur by a perturbation from the outside of the system L. Then you need

to consider a larger system L' that includes some part of the outside of L.

Then the Schroedinger equation should be different than the one that gives the

time evolution

U =exp (iL_0(tf-ti)).

In your description of the jump, you thus need to speak about another system

L' than L, and the states Psi_i and Psi_f are neither the eigenstates of that

larger system L' nor describe the system L'. In this larger system L', the

time evolution would follow the Schroedinger propagator of L'. The jump is

absorbed into the Shroedinger propagator of the larger sysmtem L' and what

looked like a jump of the system L was merely the ignorance about the larger

system L'.

[MP]

The 'time' t is just group theoretical parameter like parameter

characterizing element of Lie-group in some unitary representation

of group. It has nothing to do with experienced time. As far

actual calculations are considered, this is precisely its role

also in standard quantum field theory. 'Time' t runs from -infty

to +infty in experiment. Usually this is taken as approximation:

interactions are 'turned on' at ti--> -infty and

'turned off' tf--> infty: this of course makes no sense but is

handy manner to get to the formula of S-matrix,

which is mathematically obvious.

Note: One could avoid use of t totally, by just speaking about

S-matrix. The definition of S-matrix leads to introduction

of t and it is indeed possible to speak about information

currents associated with t-development. An open question is whether

this is really useful or not.

Note: The form of U follows in TGD from the requirements of General

Coordinate Invariance, Poincare invariance and Super Virasoro

invariance and guaranteese that S-matrix of the theory

is algebraically very 'stringy' and hence also yields the S-matrix

reducing at low energy limit to that of standard model

in good approximation. Thus the form of U is *NOT* any adhoc

choice.

Note: One can call U as 'informational time development' since

information difference between final and initial states

defining information gain of conscious experiences results

from U.

c) Geometric time is associated with spacetime surfaces as time

coordinate. Geometric time is highly nonunique by GCI.

It can be taken as lightcone proper time in most cases and at least

locally.

'Holy trinity' is *NOT* starting point of TGD approach,

there is nothing 'religious' associated with this

term. Holy trinity and tripartism is not starting point of

TGD, these concepts only sum up the philosophy first by the

only known consistent mathematical formulation of quantum TGD.

[HK]

Matti Pitkanen <matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi> wrote:

Subject: [time 735] Which was first: clock or time?

*>[LF]
*

*> Dear Matti, Stephen, Hitoshi, et al.:
*

*>
*

*> Because I am too busy with practical affairs to follow this discussion
*

*> closely, much less to participate actively, I apologize if the following
*

*> comment is inappropriate, but I could not let the following pass without
*

*> some comment:
*

*>
*

*> Somebody (I think Stephen) wrote:
*

*>
*

*> > I see LS's as fundamental clocks, and thus it
*

*> > should be possible to consider an "ensemble of clocks" as given by a
*

*> > ensemble of LSs. But, I am very sketchy in my thinking of this. :-(
*

*>
*

*> To which Matti replied:
*

*>
*

*> >
*

*> > [MP] I cannot say. One should need a quantative model for clock.
*

*> > Clock as oscillator is a nice model but based on rythe existence of
*

*> > time! You want to derive time from the existence of clocks, I
*

*> > am happy in deriving the existence of clocks from the existence
*

*> > of time!
*

*>
*

*> My comment is this: Matti's reply does indeed identify the core issue.
*

*> The only problem I have with Matti's comment is that it seems rather
*

*> casual, so it doesn't alert the reader to how fundamental the
*

*>disagreement here is.
*

*>
*

[MP]

*> This was casual comment. I have talked a lot about TGD based
*

*> time concept in earlier discussions and I did not bother to repeat
*

*> all that. In any case, the disagreement is fundamental.
*

*>
*

*> It is not that I would believe that geometric time is enough: the point
*

*> is that there are *three times*.
*

*>
*

*> a) Subjective time "measured" as a number of quantum jumps occurred.
*

[HK]

You seem to think/assume that quantum jumps exist. You often identifies

them with our waking up in the morning. I have another view to the

so-called quantum jumps from the point of view of observer: They just look

like existing but do not occur as far as they are observable. The jump is

a jump from one eigenstate to another, but if this jump could be

observable, the observed system that jumped must be in scattering state

(that is orthogonal to eigenstates), hence this is not a jump.

[MP] One must distinguish between quantum jumps and selves carefully. I

assume quantum jumps. Wake-up means generation of self

which is able to stay self (p-adically unentangled): wake-up can

occur either spontaneously (U develop p-adically vanishing entanglement)

or by quantum jump.

Your view is possible and certainly the only one if one sticks

with dualism or materialism. Equally well I could formulate my belief

as belief in existence of free will. I am however worried

about whether your approach is really consistent with quantum

measurement theory.

*>[MP]
*

*> b) Geometric time, this is the good old Einsteinian time and combines
*

*> with space to form spacetime.
*

[HK]

Geometrical time appears only in observation and this time is the

observer's time that observes the geometry of other systems. Thus

geometrical time is a time of a local system when it is in a state of

observation of others.

[MP] Yes, I understand your view: here we simply have different

ontologies.

Einstein himself talked about 'events' in formulation of Special

Relativity and this suggests that he identified time with observer's

time. He however introduced proper time concept as observer's subjective

time and this definition involved also the motion of observer.

This is step to the same direction of subjective time

as I define it freeing it from geometry totally. The view

of Einstein about observing was surprisingly close to mine: he states that

our observations give only very partial accounts about the reality

behind, in particular that our concept of time

reflects this. I however disagree with Einstein's belief

about given unique spacetime.

*>[MP]
*

*> c) And also the time *parameter* t of unitary time
*

*> evolution operator U: this parameter is purely group theoretical and has
*

*> absolutely nothing to do with our psychological time. t runs from -inty
*

to

*> infty during each quantum jump Psi_i--> UPsi_i-->Psi_f.
*

*> U defines S-matrix and predictions of quantum physics. Already
*

Heisenberg

*> realized that the time evolution associated with S-matrix has nothing to
*

*> do with time evolution as we experience it. All calculations assume
*

*> that t runs from -inty to infty but take this as 'technical'
*

assumption:

*> therefore TGD predicts precisely same general form of S-matrix
*

*> as standard physics. Interpretation is only different.
*

[HK]

Unitary time is the proper time of a local system, existing as a

clocking/living of itself. This time is the fundamental one, from which

the geometrical time arises in the act of observation. Quantum jumps is an

illusion of the present physicists. Thus my formulation combines these

three kinds of time of yours.

[MP] Here TGD differs from you view decisevely but is completely

consistent with how S-matrix is always defined.

You approach is subject to obvious criticism: does it really yield

the predictions of standard measurement theory. Born rule, probability

interpretation. It if does, I would be interested to know how it

achieves this feat. As we know, already the Bell inequalities and

the fact that only eigenstates of observables occurs as outcomes

of measurements, seem to simply exclude the possibility to reproduce

quantum measurement theory without actually assuming quantum jump.

[HK]

Quantum jump is an approximate statement of a behavior of a scattering state

(or resonance). The usual quantum jump is a behavior of a resonance, that is a

scattering state close to the eigenstate but not excatly an eigenstate. This

would revover all the results and explanations of measurement theory.

In the above case, the state Psi_i and Psi_f should be resonaces of the system

L' (not of L) that follows the evolution (unitary propagator) of the system

L'. When these states are restricted to the system L that is a subsystem of

L', they show the behavior close to the eigenstates of L. The point is what

system one is speaking about right now. The forgetting the currently focused

system causes the cofusion that quantum jumps occur.

*>[MP]
*

*> In standard physics all these times are identified as single time: it is
*

*> easy to understand what a mess results!
*

[HK]

I do not see your theory cleans up the mess.

[MP]

a) The fact that quantum jumps occur between quantum histories

solves the "determinism of quantum jump-determinism of Schrodinger

equation" paradox. Schrodinger equation does not cease to hold

for a moment: rather entire solution of Schrodinger is replaced

with a new one.

[This interpretation is by the way consistent also with

the structure of S-matrix in standard QFT: integrations

over entires spacetime]

b) Dissipative time development means phenomenological description

replacing the sequence of final state spacetimes (macroscopically

equivalent by localization in zero modes) with single macroscopic

spacetime, which is like envelope for set of curves. Not quite

exact envelope solving the reversible equations of motion

is in question: hence one must introduce various parameters

characterizing irreversibelity (diffusion constants, paraters

characterizing friction, etc...).

c) The loss of geometric time occurs in GRT because configuration

space consists of 3-geometries. Configuration space of 3-surfaces

differs from Wheeler's super space: one can associate with 3-surface

center of mass time coordinate. This gives me geometrical

time lost in quantum GRT.

Classical nondeterminism of Kaehler action is crucial

for undestanding of *psychological time* characterizing

cm time coordinate for the contents of cs experience.

Without classical nondeterminism the information contents

of our experiences would not be concentrated around any value

of geometric time.

Classical nondeterminism however makes possible cognitive

spacetime sheets with finite time duration and q uantum jumps for

which nondeterminism is concentrated

to a finite interval of geometric time: and these

quantum jumps correspond to conscious experiences with time localized

content. This is how psychological time emerges. As center of mass time

coordinate for contents of conscious experience.

Note that I assume no a priori experiencers: experiencer is defined

by the contents of experience. In dualistic approch mind and

matter are assumed apriori.

There are many other items in the list of 'time anomalies' but I will

not go to these here.

*>
*

*> *************
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>[LF]
*

*> In Hitoshi's first statements on the subject of Local Times one of the
*

*> things that attracted my attention (as a philosopher) was his comment
*

that

*> the problem of time in contemporary physics is essentially a
*

philosophical

*> problem, not a physical or mathematical problem. Matti's comment here
*

*> perfectly illustrates the validity of Hitoshi's assertion about the
*

nature

*> of the problem of time. What is at issue is really how we understand the
*

*> fundamental nature of time. In our joint article in Apeiron, Hitoshi
*

and

*> I were completely explicit about the fact that our position was in
*

*> opposition to the conventional understanding. Here is what we wrote:
*

*>
*

*> "...the proper clock is the local system itself,
*

*> and it is a necessary manifestation of that local system.
*

*> In this sense, clockingEis the natural activity of any
*

*> local system. It follows from this that to be an existing
*

*> thing in the world necessarily involves clocking, without
*

*> which there is no interaction. In these respects, our position
*

*> is in complete opposition to the conventional understanding
*

*> of time measurement, where time is given a
*

*> priori and the measurement of time by clocks is viewed as
*

*> an incidental activity of intelligent observers. Contrary to
*

*> the conventional understanding, our view is that all beings
*

*> are engaged in measuring and observing, and the activities
*

*> of measuring and observing are not incidental, but
*

*> pertain to the essence of all interactions. If we are permitted
*

*> to express it somewhat boldly, we have turned things
*

*> completely around: It is not that things exist and their
*

*> duration is incidentally expressed by clocks. According to
*

*> our formulation, clocks exist and their operation is necessarily
*

*> expressed by duration."
*

*>
*

*> (to which we might have added, Time, as measured or counted duration, is
*

*> what results when certain local systems or certain sets of interactions
*

*> are chosen as the standard in terms of which other durations are
*

*> described, much as monetary value comes into existence when one
*

*> commodity
*

*> is chosen as the unit in terms of which the exchange relations of other
*

*> commodities are expressed.)
*

*>
*

*>[MP]
*

*> Thank your for a nice phrasing of your viewpoint.
*

*> I agree in many aspects with what you say. I have however
*

*> 'neuropsychology' oriented starting point. LS as self, if it
*

experiences

*> time must have subself waking up periodically. We have a lot of
*

*> them, typically mental images representing mental images, recur
*

*> periodically. After images are a good example. Self can
*

*> however be in state of whole body consciousness and have no subselves:
*

*> in this case it has no clock: hence explanation for the reports about
*

*>'no time' experiences by meditators.
*

*>
*

*> I could paraphrase you comment about turning things completely around.
*

*> Selves exists as heaps of cs experiences associated
*

*> with quantum jumps and give rise to experience of *subjective time*.
*

*> Each self waking up periodically is clock of some larger self.
*

*> One could also say that quantum jump is basic tick of subjective
*

*> time (not directly experienced as such however) and subjective time
*

*> is created by the syncronized ticking of all the subjective clocks of
*

*> this infinite universe. But as I said, I assume also the existence of
*

*> geometric time and formal time parameter t associated with the unitary
*

*> evolution operator U. I believe that only this 'holy trinity' makes
*

[HK]

I notice that you have been sticking to "the holy trinity" from the

beginning of your discussion. This sounds like you have a kind of

religious starting point as Kepler, et al.

[MP]

As I noticed, I use "holy trinity" only to summarize the philosophical

interpretation for the outcome of mathematical formulation of quantum TGD.

*> it possible to resolve all the paradoxes related to the concept
*

*> of time.
*

*> ********
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>[LF]
*

*> Now, to come back to Matti's comment: It is entirely in order to
*

*> challenge Hitoshi and me to flesh out our claims -- to show that we can
*

*> offer an intelligible and serviceable, quantitative model of a clock --
*

*> and it is particularly apt for Matti to demand that we show that our
*

*> model is not an instance of circular definition. However, I am less
*

*> comfortable
*

*> when Matti says, "I am happy in deriving the existence of clocks from
*

*> the existence of time!" The reason I am uncomfortable with that is that
*

*> it seems to me that it simply begs the question. I am not saying he is
*

*> wrong. I am simply saying that we need to acknowledge that this is what
*

is

*> in dispute. From our point of view, Matti's claim looks just as
*

doubtful

*> as ours looks to him.
*

*>
*

[MP]

*> OK. My statement was casual already because I have
*

*> all these three times instead of only one (as if single time would
*

*> not produce enough head aches(;-)) and was meant only to
*

*> pinpoint the difference in views.
*

[HK]

I feel this is not a difference but a lack of unifying view point. Three

kinds of time do not seem to help us to understand the universe.

[MP] Here I disagree but I can give only the arguments supporting

my view, which I think are convincing. I am of course grateful for

any detailed demonstration of how my framework fails.

In any case, I do not want to take any role of guru. Anyone must discover

the truth personally, if not in this life, then in the next(;-)!

[HK]

I agree with the last two sentences.

*>
*

*> Best,
*

*> MP
*

Best wishes,

Hitoshi

**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 746] Re: [time 744] Re: [time 727] Re: My Paradigm Shift"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 744] Re: [time 727] Re: My Paradigm Shift"**Maybe in reply to:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 727] Re: My Paradigm Shift"

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