Matti Pitkanen (email@example.com)
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:18:39 +0300 (EET DST)
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 WDEshleman@aol.com wrote:
> The concept of generalized lexicon lends support for the idea
> that TGD:eish Universe has enough subjective memory to discover
> laws of physics and consciousness.
> Is this equivalent to saying that the TGD:eish Universe allows for its
> own self-awareness? This speaks to the idea that "we are the Universe
> experiencing itself". :-)
> Precisely. Universe is the highest self in the hierarchy of selves
> and is continually awake since it cannot entangle with anything larger
> and thus lose its consciousness.
> It is only a look[HK]. The reasoning that leads to the relativistic
> prediction of the phenomenon of an event horizon surrounding a
> black-hole at R = 2 * G * M / c^2, also leads to a relativistic event-
> horizon surrounding a universe.
I think that your argument about horizon does not bite in case of TGD.
The concept of event horizon belongs to the realm of geometric spacetime.
I am speaking about universe as quantum history: superposition
of spacetime surfacses. It does not matter whether spacetime surfaces
have event horizons since the concept of universe as self is
purely Hilbert-space level concept.
> Matti, I know what you think of
> Everett's incomplete theory, but please stay with my reasoning...
> The event-horizon prohibits seeing the other universes as phenomena,
> but interference between selves in different universes (a photon/object
> interferes only with itself) is allowed.
This idea sounds attractive but I cannot see how it could be formulated
mathematically. It is often stated that Everett's interpretation is
the only mathematically soud one but I see it as mathematically ill
defined. This endless splitting of universe is something which I simply
cannot grasp mathematically.
>Photons interfere with self as
> detected by interference patterns; matter interferes with self (I
> suggest) as detected by the Lorentz transform. Limitation of
> reality to a single universe is a galling limitation. I would prefer
> to say myself that, The multiverse is the highest self in a
> heirarchy of selves each of which is unable to interact (make a
> measurement) with any other self, but can interfer with identical
> selves in nearly identical universes. Therefore, consciousness
> is the result of self interfering with many nearly identical selves.
> You see, MWI can lead to a theory of consciousness that is
> a continual interference between like sub-consciousness'.
The interference idea is of course attractive metaphor.
The problem is what interference really means. Can one really say that
different branches of universe interfere? One could quite well argue
that this is impossible by definition since they represent orthogonal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:41 JST