Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:57:04 -0400
Dear Matti,
:) I could say: "Ah, you are discovering what I have also discovered
about consciousness!" :) I apologize for the slowness in my replies to
your very thought provoking posts. I have been reading many papers and
books in an attempt to broaden my vocabulary so that I can communicate
more effectively with you and the others on the Time List. I have also
had a bit of "writer's block" and have been taking care of my new baby.
About dissipation and consciousness: I believe that the two processes
are the reverse of each other! This notion is inspired by Roger
Penrose's argument in The Emperor's New Mind were he shows that the
annihilation of information by black holes is balanced by the creation
of "flow lines" in a phase space container representing the entire
universe.
When I found Vaughan Pratt's paper (ratmech.ps) discussing a duality
between time and logic I was convinced that the idea was correct, but I
have been unable to communicate this idea to others. Even Pratt himself
does not understand me. :( He has not worked out the way to formulate
entropy within his notion.
Your idea of the pinary cutoff is wonderful! It goes along way in
explaining why any observer has a "field of perception" that appears to
be "complete" to them. I have long argued that each observer has their
own finite universe but have not been understood. :( Matti, my friend,
you are explaining what I can not. I thank you.
I highly recommend Michael C. Mackey's book Time Arrows. If you can't
get it from the library let me know any I will send you copies of the
relevant parts. His "God Theorem" is very important for your ideas
relating dissipation to consciousness. It proves that an invertible
system U can have subsystems U_i that are not invertible and are thus
dissipative and irreversible. The way that mapping between the Real
valued states and p-adic valued states occurs is indicative. I do not
know how to represent this mathematically....
The irreversibility of quantum jumps as an action of collapsing the
many possibilities down to one actuality is in a fundamental way the
reverse of a dissipation (like the thermodynamic evolution of a system's
phase space) that maps one flow to many. Perhaps "flow" is the wrong
word... The key is that we have dual semigroups of dynamics, one
semigroup representing the evolution of consciousness and the other the
evolution of dissipation. Both involve a "time" but they "flow in
opposite directions".
The unity of the two is realized at the Grundlagen level of the
Totality, which is one. It has no dynamics in itself as seen by the fact
that it has no time associated. Mackey's proof that invertible systems
have no time (he does not say this exactly but it is implied) while
non-invertible systems will have time.
I will try to write up something about this soon. I am currently
thinking about how to best describe how subsets of U^T have non-zero
potentials with respect to each other and how this relates to the two
semigroups discussed above and how your ideas explain this. BTW,
Prigogine has the math of the semigroups already worked out!
Onward to the Unknown,
Stephen
Matti Pitkanen wrote:
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
> Below is qmind message summarizing the recent situation in problem of
> defining measures for information content of conscious experience. There
> is also a new chapter in TGD inspired theory of consciousness.
>
> By the way, quantum jump is jump to a state with vanishing entanglement.
> In earlier posting You proposed that entanglement could perhaps vanish
> only to some accuracy epsilon. I disagreed saying something
> like 'philosophy with accuracy epsilon is not attractive idea'.
> I was wrong.
>
> Common sense indeed suggests that you are correct.
> There are several arguments.
>
> For instance, conscious experiences bind to single experience if there
> is arbitrary but nonvanishing small entanglement present. It is difficult
> to understand why conscious experiences would become separate experiences
> precisely when entangelment is zero and integrate to single experience
> for arbitrary small entanglement. Rather, one would expect
> some critical entanglement entropy below which integration
> does not occur.
>
> I found that this is the case!
>
> The point is that real states are mapped to their p-adic counterparts
> and if real entanglement entropy is smaller than the pinary resolution
> (recall pinary cutoff) then real entanglement with entanglement
> entropy below pinary cutoff is mapped to zero p-adic entanglement!
> p-Adic entanglement could be even defined as entanglement with
> the unique pinary cutoff! Pinary cutoff defines the resolution
> of conscious experience also.
>
>
> Best,
>
> MP
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:05 JST