**Ben Goertzel** (*ben@goertzel.org*)

*Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:36:17 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 912] Re: [time 911] RE: [time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 911] RE: [time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 916] RE: [time 912] Re: [time 911] RE: [time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"

*>
*

*> In a few cases... I had been studying Feynman integral myself. It
*

*> is hard to
*

*> say that it has been given a definition mathematically.
*

*>
*

In 2D it has been dealt with nicely using analytic continuation, but no one

has made this work

for real 4D space as far as I know

Some people have dealt with the Feynman integral using some nice Hilbert

space mathematics, but I forget

the references

My inclination is to discretize everything, and then everything becomes

automatically definable, i.e. it becomes

a finite sum over a large number of combinations rather than a divergent

integral.

The measure underlying the Feynman integral is not clear. Here I would like

to introduce a notion of subjective

simplicity, whereby e.g. the weight of a path in the measure is the a priori

simplicity of the path. As a first

approximation algorithmic information could be used for a simplicity

measure. But I have never pursued this idea

mathematically, althought it makes sense to me intuitively.

Also, if you believe the "mind over matter" results from the Princeton labs,

these could be explained by the mind altering

the simplicity measure underlying the Feynman integrals governing particle

motion. But this is raw speculation

of course!!

ben

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 912] Re: [time 911] RE: [time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 911] RE: [time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Next in thread:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 916] RE: [time 912] Re: [time 911] RE: [time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:40:47 JST
*