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

*Sat, 9 Oct 1999 12:41:15 +0900*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 918] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 916] RE: [time 912] Re: [time 911] RE: [time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 913] RE: [time 912] Re: [time 911] RE: [time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Next in thread:**Stephen P. King: "[time 926] Re: [time 913] Mind over Matter"

Dear Ben,

Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:

Subject: [time 913] 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,
*

For 2D Dirac equations, it has also been treated without 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
*

Probably you are talking about Ito formula or Kac's one?

*>
*

*> 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.
*

If one can stop at a finite step, it is so of course...

*>
*

*> 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,
*

What is this "mind over matter" results? Could you explain?

*> 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
*

*>
*

Best wishes,

Hitoshi

**Next message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 918] Re: [time 914] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Previous message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 916] RE: [time 912] Re: [time 911] RE: [time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "[time 913] RE: [time 912] Re: [time 911] RE: [time 910] Re: [time 909] About your proof of unitarity"**Next in thread:**Stephen P. King: "[time 926] Re: [time 913] Mind over Matter"

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