[time 993] Love and Sex in a Quantum World (Induction, Deduction and Computation)

Stephen Paul King (stephenk1@home.com)
Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:46:55 -0500

Love and Sex in a Quantum World

Love and Sex in a Quantum World


Nick Herbert who wrote the books Quantum Reality, Faster than Light,
the Elemental Mind etc. has wandered into the Love and Sex relationship.
How did that happen ? Did he melt-down ? Was the wave-particle paradox
too much for him ? 

Here I try to explain how I think he transcended from quantum theory to that
duality between love and sex.


Inductive logic and mathematics are associative. Induction defines a class, and that definition of the class is an association between elements of the class. Induction defines an element of the class and extend that definition to all possible elements of the class in an open-ended infinite sense. There is no such thing as an inductive "proof" any more than we can "prove" some fundamental proposition. Induction mearly defines a class and it does this through association. If I hold up a bird and say this is an example of the bird class, then I extend the idea of bird as a generality and say that the class is composed of all such similar entities, I define the class of "birds" and all candidate members of that class must be comparable associatively to the rest. A spectrum or histogram is also in this same sense, an association of elements leading to a macro definition. There is no causual connection implied between the elements of the class. Because it is associative, induction requires space to hold all the instances of the defined class simulataneously. Therefore, induction is spatial and not temporal in nature. The spectrum is a time capsule which holds an instantaneous snapshot of many things which are correlated and associated at the time the spectrum is made. It may be argued that instantaneous time does mean that induction is not "timeless", but this "instantaneous time" implies a global or Newtonian time for all members of the class/spectrum and such time is non-relativistic, it is absolute. We can call the things which are associated by induction "states" and the association between those states is defined "in parallel" without any causual chaining between the states. There is no implied order between the elements or states of an inductive definition. They are all definable in any order, even if we choose to pick one order over another when stating the definition. Because we cannot measure instantaneous spectra, induction is only idealistically without time. Induction usually is defined recursively and so in a formal language sense, induction is memory (stack) intensive. Memory is space, the space needed to store states.


Deductive logic and mathematics are causual. One thing leads to another until some end is reached (the deductive conclusion) Deduction defines causual connection between elements. It says nothing at all about the definition of those elements. It merely says that if A then B, if B then C, and so forth. Because deduction chains "events" together in a certain sequence, we say that deduction is temporal, and causual. We really need very little space to handle the intermediate iterative values of deductive logic. Deduction is is largely therefore, a temporal algorithm. In the physical world we cannot measure infinitely small events and therefore, there is some space needed to handle intermediate values, but for the most part deduction is a temporal and therefore causual chaining of events. There is no good concept of a global time for deduction since each event is unpredictable (deduction is always contingent on some event without defining when it will happen, for this reason there can be no global absolute time. There can only be "relativistic time" in the asynchronous world of deduction). The application of deduction is always threaded serially yielding deterministic time series.


von Neumann computers largely use deductive logic because it is finitely bounded to yield finite results. It has a finite bandwidth though. Parallel computers distribute many threaded serial processes (deductive processes) to many processors but this is not enough to make them induction machines unless there is some kind of connection (association) between those many processors. Induction in parallel computers can take the form of synchronizing signals which correlate the information states of the individual processors. This correlation though does not happen instantaneously and requires the speed of light to occur (the speed of an electric signal between the many processors). Quantum computers allow the correlation between the many processors to occur without the electrical connection between them. Each processor in effect maintains its own local "relativistic" time[1] and the correlation between the processors occurs via entanglement between them. In order to entangle the processors, they must first interact with each other and, like a set of bells that clashed, after they are separated, they are still correlated. In this manner, quantum computers can carry out an associative operation like induction instantaneously or non-locally but there is no non-local connection between them. The trick is to keep the bells ringing (quantum decoherence) and there are numerous possibilities for this. Hypnosis can prevent them from forgetting, or we can give them photographic memories....

Quantum Love and Sex

Love and Sex are like the relation between Induction and Deduction. Platonic Love is purely inductive. A person usually says "I love you forever (infinite global time) and for infinitely many associated reasons (infinite space)". But they do not say: "I love you if...". They may say "I love this most about you", but that is not deductive since it is not conditional. Love is like a spectrum without any causual connection between its states. Loveless sex is more deductive. It says if I do this, then such and such will happen and if you do that, then such and such will happen, and if everything happens in the right order and under the right conditions eventually some climax, or conclusion, is reached. In general though Platonic love and Loveless sex are not very common and there is an uncertainty relation governing these static extrema. The more dynamic picture includes the dynamic changes we go through in fluctuations between these extrema. We use both induction and deduction as their individual needs arise. We also use more liquid or wavelike superpositions rather than mixtures of these two modes. I think Nick Herbert's foray into Love and Sex is undoubtably derivable deductively from these inductive analogs. It is logical, both inductive and deductive, mating between the subjective and objective worlds. [1] Theory of Local Times, Hitoshi Kitada [2] Nick Herbert's Web site

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Dec 01 1999 - 01:15:40 JST