Matti Pitkanen (matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi)
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:47:07 +0300 (EET DST)
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Stephen P. King wrote:
> Dear Matti,
>
> Matti Pitkanen wrote:
> >
> > This is continuation to to me reply.
> >
> > [SPK]
> > > The western concept of a single Divine
> > > entity that exists "in eternity" is at odds with the most basic
> > > requirements of a consious "Self". Only finite entities can be
> > > self-aware. Consiousness without the ability of self-awareness is a mute
> > > notion, it is useful only to model particles. There is no Mind, in the
> > > usual meaning involved, only simple logical entailment.
> >
> > This seems to be real difference in our beliefs!
> >
> > a) Consciousness without self awareness is possible in my framework
> > but is not especially interesting. Just a single flash of consciousness.
>
> Yes.
>
> > b) I do not believe Mind as continuous stream of cs but
> > as self: subsystem able to remain unentangled in subsequence
> > quantum jumps (time developments U).
>
> > This is deep notion: this has become clear. Takes few weeks to see the
> > consequences. Most importantly: it has become clear that
> >
> > *thought does not correspond to single quantum jump.*
>
[MP]... and to single quantum computation by the way.
> Yes! I think that there is a deep connection here with statistical
> properties. The "ensemble" and the "time series" have, I believe,
> correspondences in the structure of a self!
[MP] Yes. Self is quantum statistical concept. Not each quantum
jumps need be identical but some kind of average personality is needed and
I think that this is possible by quantum statistical determinism.
Quantum jumps of self occur with large probability to some state.
> Just as a single data bit or
> point is "just a stochastic variable" and meaningless, like the "single
> flash of consciousness", (having no meaningful information content). It
> is the context of the "neighborhood" of the data point, given by either
> the ensemble of time-series, that gives it meaning. Umm, I am failing to
> paint my mental picture well here, perhaps I can communicate more detail
> as we discuss further. (Effective communication is maximizing the
> ability of the communicators to "mimic" (or predict within \epsilon
> accuracy) each other's internal behavior!)
>
> > This is impossible for simple reason that the average increment of
> > psychological time is extremely small in single quantum jump for
> > all reasonable estimates of time increment.
> > Our thoughts are very slow in this time scale and involve
> > perhaps something like 10^40 quantum jumps typically.
>
> I agree. In my Forbidden paper, I said that the individual's local
> framing is re-constructed, on the average, every 10^-44 seconds! I has
> taking the prediction of QM of the cosmological constant seriously and
> considering that the local "universe" (what I call a framing now) went
> through a Big Bang to Big Crunch in a Planck time and that this repeated
> endlessly (given an "immortal" observer, of course!)
[MP]
Your time corresponds to Planck time: my time to CP_2 time. It took
very long time for me to realize that CP_2 size cannot be given
by Planck length but by length 10^4 times longer. G is
basically prediction, R is given: not the viceversa!
Of course, my estimate for average increment of psychological time
is just the simplest guess: it is nice in the sense that
the time runs with same speed for all cognitive
spacetime sheets. Other estimates lead to
different speeds for time run. They predict however very small
value of increment and thought as single quantum jump seems to
be dead idea.
>
> > The notion of self however saves the situation by bringing in
> > experienced continuity. Thoughts can be identified as hierarchical
> > cascades waking up selves withing selves representing basic building
> > blocks of thought (or more
> > generally cognitive act). One could say that selves represent
> > symbols about which AI people are talking. Just yesterday I played with
> > this notion trying to understand how musical experience could be
> > understood (frequencies correspond to different selves
> > waking up above critical Fourier amplitude and falling
> > asleep below it).
>
> A "frame rate" of 1 "thought" per 10^-44 seconds sure does give a good
> illusion of continuity! :-)
>
[MP] Yes.
> > Logical causation is realized both as set theoretic and
> > temporal causation simultaneously. Set theoretic
> > caustion: A-->B corresponds to self
> > B is subself of A and temporal causation results from
> > the fact that subself of self cannot wake up before A has
> > woken up.
>
> Yes, the perception of individual time follows!
>
[MP] Even more. The basic structures of cognition seem to emerge
naturally. Yesterday night I read 'How the Mind Works' by Pinker:
I got it as gift. Well, year ago I throw it off from my hands
with feelings of disgust(;-): I could not tolerate the
mechanical computationalism. I rad it again and found that
this generation of selves of subselves is just what computationalists
are proposing to explain basic features of computation. Examples:
a) Classes and individuals: ensemble of unentangled selfs:
Summation hypothesis statest that the self containing these selves
has experience what it is to be typical self in that class of selves.
b) Informational hierarchy is necessary: more and more abstract
concepts are represented by higher selves in the hierarchy.
Modular structure of program probably represents very much of
computationalism and characterizes also cognition: this is predicted.
c) Dynamical cognitive representations are needed and are realized in
terms of ensembles of selves. They are not stored as static structure:
no could afford so much computer memory. They are generated in
this cascade of selves decomposing into subselves decomposing....
d) How to distinguish between wholes and parts. Entanglement
between selves creates whole experience. In absence of
entanglement the self containing these subselves experiences
itself as average subself. Here one must be cautious, there
are certainly additional criteria: self very probably does not
generate average of house and mouse even when they are unentangled
subselves.
e) How to understand difference between left and right brain.
What is the origin between linear, analytic language like cognition
of left brain and parallel, emotional, holistic cognition of right brain.
Answer to the question: self can be in two modes.
i) In state of 'oneness' having no subselves and perform quantum jumps
preserving this state: this means reduction of matter mind entanglement
instead of quantum decomposing self to two subselves by quantum
jump. It is however possible that subselves are generated spontaneously
withOUT quantum jump: U creates p-adically unentangled subsystem or
several of them: entire group of selves essentially can be
generated simultaneously if self is near criticality.
This is nothing but parallel processing of right brain.
Emotions could be generated in this manner as 'statistical' qualia.
Also color experience, temperature and pressure senses and
taste are good candidates for statistical sense involving
this parallel aspect. Music is right brain activity: different
frequencies could generate resonantly matter-mind entanglement
for frequency selves and raise them to a state of oneness lasting
as long as volume of particular frequency is above critical
valued: after that frequency self returns to ordinary mode and
decomposes into subself cascade making analysis of the
enlightment experience.
Second possibility is that self decomposes into two subselves
by quantum jumps reducing matter+mind-matter+mind type entanglement.
Two selves at time and linear temporal sequencing. This is what
left brain could do in length scales above cell membrane thickness.
For intance, the structures of language could be understood naturally.
For instance, how to represent subject verb object structure
uniquely: How computer distinguishes between meanings of Child ate slug
and Slug ate child, what puts these symbols in natural order?
Answer: They are represented as selves created at different times
in temporal cascade of selves!
f) The lack of emotional intelligence associated with autism
is especially interesting challenge for consciousness theories.
Mathematical gift often relates with autism. Could it be
that both right and left brain hemispheres are in serial mode
in this case?
OK. I made a long digression but I am so enthusiastic. This works!
> snip
> > > Umm, I am not getting information flow... I see a Hierarchical
> > ordering
> > > of Levels.
> > > 1)The One: At the grundlagen, we have The Universe In-itself. It is
> > > Existence, it included all and is all.
> >
> > Space of all possible quantum histories in my approach: the space
> > of all possible universes.
>
> Yes.
>
> > > 2)The TWO: there we have the essential dichotomy of subject-Object, the
> > > Duality of Self versus Other, of Information versus Matter.
> >
> > Subject-object dichotomy is realized geometrically as cognitive
> > and material spacetime sheets in my approach.
>
> > Quantum histories =objective realities says LOGOS=COSMOS. Identity instead
> > of duality.
>
> Yes! The infomorphism established the identity between the local LOGOS
> and local COSMOS. I say local, since there is more that one
> self-identity, since there exist more than one self, person, LS, etc.
> The MANY...
[MP]
OK. I agree. Reality to p-adicity mappings at level of spacetime,
configuration space and space of quantum histories are
the counterparts of infomorphisms in TGD. Local self determines
with p-adic prime is involved.
>
> > On the other hand I have informational time development
> > given by quantum mechanical time development and time development
> > of matter as geometry: absolute minimization of Kahler action.
>
> Yes, except that I, following Pratt, see these to as mathematical
> duals! "Informational time development" = logical precedence or
> entailment and "time development of matter as geometry" = causal time.
>
In my framework they are different. You have single existence,
I have trinity of existences. I woud actually say:
LOGOS= quantum COSMOS which is different from classical cosmos,
spacetime surface.
> > > 3)The Many: there we have the potential infinity of possible different
> > > aspects of the One, relative to each other.
> > >
> > The summation hypothesis implies that there is an infinite hierarchy
> > of selves, subsystems able to remain *p-adically* unentangled
> > during subsequence quantum jumps (this is dynamical property),
> > such that each self forms abstraction from the experiences
> > of all of its subselves, realizes the Many aspect. The ultimate
> > One is the entire universe, God, who cannot be entangled
> > with any larger subsystem and is whole time in wake-up
> > state(;-).
>
> Umm, I strongly question this last notion, but, I think that you have
> something! It has been said that the world is God's dream, here you have
> God who is awake... But I question what such a BEING would be aware of!
[MP]
About itself, all those subsystems. Forming the ultimate
abstractions about desires and beliefs and all what we lower
selves are doing. Recall that all what selves experience
is about what happens within selves! Cognitive representations
about objects of external world are subselves. The house I
see, the note I hear is self within me, symbole of the house, symbol
of the note. Also symbols for material objects within are present.
God does not have symbols for outside world since outside world does not
exist but has symbols for what exists in the world.
God experiences what it is to be average human being, average
mathematician, etc... God is the main program having infinitely
deep decomposition to subprograms, or the ultimate Self symbol
as some AI people would perhaps express it.
> Unless IT is the ONE, there would exist the possibility that a larger
> subsystem and you are saying that such is not the case. The problem I
> see is that the ONE has no complement and thus has only NOTHING to be
> aware of! (The NOTHING is the empty set.) If there is no information
> content in the complement of a subsystem, there is nothing to be aware
> of. Such a ONE would experience what is known as the DAEMON Paradox, it
> would have no inertia, its framing would instantly react to its every
> motion such that it can not define itself.
> Oh, I should mention that this implies that inertia is exactly canceled
> out. I wish that I was familiar with the mathematics of this notion. It
> is like a space-time manifold that is completely devoid of
> matter-energy... It has no metric, I think...
[MP]
No: it is flat Minkowski space.
>
> > > The idea I have that information is not mere epiphenomena of matter or
> > > matter merely epiphenomena of information. We really need to have a
> > > discussion on Pratt's work to get into the subtleties of this notion.
> > >
> >
> > Here I agree and regarded the notion of quantum between different
> > universes essential for the realization of this requirement.
> > The notion of single Universe is very dangerous in this respect:
> > I find it difficult to see why it would ont lead to materialism.
>
> Yes! :-) The Universe (TOTALITY of EXISTENCE, the ONE) is completely
> neutral, it is neither matter nor information! Thus I avoid the danger
> of materialism! :-)
[MP]
Well,......, I am little suspicious(;-)!
>
> > > > > Here is a crude sketch of my idea about the applicability of Weyl's
> > > > > geometry:
> > > > > "The necessary and sufficient condition that a Weyl geometry may be
> > > > > reduced to a Riemannian geometry is that a vector keep its original
> > > > > length after transplantation along an arbitrary closed trajectory.
> > > > > Indeed, the condition of such a length preservation is ...
> > > > >
> > > > > (15.40) \surface integral_C of dl/l = \surface integral_C
> > > > > \PHI_\alpha dx^\alpha = 0
> > > > >
> > > > > [forgive my terrible ascii]
> > > > >
> > > > > and it is well known that \PHI_\alpha|\beta - PHI_\beta|\alpha
> > > > > \equivalent 0 is the necessary and sufficient condition for the
> > > > > integrability requirement of (15.41) in simply connected regions."
> > > > > [from Introduction to General Relativity by Adler, Bazin and
> > Schiffer,
> > > > > 1975. pg. 496]
> > > >
> > > > OK. This is obvious.
> > > >
> > > > > These "simply-connected regions" would have properties that are
> > > > > represented by Maxwell field equations. These define the patterns of
> > > > > causal connections that M^4's represent. They have the appearance of
> > > > > being unique from the point of view of an observer O because they
> > > > > are the framing within which an observation by O is possible.
> >
> > This I undestand and agree. In TGD also every self forms its own conscious
> > representation of spacetime. But representation is in question. Not
> > 'real' spacetime: rather p-adic(:)!
>
> YES! :-) My problem is that I am not knowledgeable of p-adic math, but
> do understand the picture involved! :-)
>
> > > > > for the sake of illustration the ability to observe this projection
> > > > > process "from a divine point of view" we would see that each O (an
> > LS)
> > > > > has its own M^4 constructed piece by piece by mappings between its
> > > > > internal propagator's (quantum mechanical) dynamic's configuration
> > space
> > > > > and points in the manifold W.
> > >
> > Also this I graps dimly: but the problem is how to make this precise
> > mathematical set-theoretic notion.
>
> Yes, this is what I am very interested in accomplishing and need help!
> I find the formalisms of Fuzzy sets and hypersets to be the ones needed,
> but I need a successful combination of the two formalisms.
>
Fuzzy and hyper sets are also for me unknown territory: it takes a lot
of time and labour and conviction to gain the needed intuition
to apply some new mathematical concept.
> snip
> [MP]
> > In TGD context the mappings of geometric structures to their p-adic
> > counterparts corresponds to forming various *p-adicities* the views of
> > different observers, selves, about same underlying *reality*.
>
> Umm, I think that holds if the structure has a strict ultrametric. Umm,
> this is were I generalize and is perhaps why I fail to communicate my
> notion that there does not have to be a "same underlying *reality*".
> This is something very subtle! Have you read the "Ultrametricity for
> physicists" paper by Rammal, Toulouse and Virasoro (Rev. Mod. Phys. 58,
> 765-788)? I could send copy!
[MP] The ultrametricity of p-adics has been one of the continuing
inspirations behind p-adicity. Ultrametricity implies
natural tree structure and categorization in the sense
that given category decomposes to p categories always.
I wondered whether p-adic tree could correspond to what happens
when we perform categorization. It seems that that it cannot be so
simple. Category tree with p bracches at each node
seems however too rigid and unrealistic rigid for a model of
cognition.
The hierarchical tree of selves in the self cascade is
dynamical and flexible. p-Adics seem to enter in different manner: they
provide the proper topology for the mental image of reality.
The concept of pinary cutoff automatically forced by real-padic
mapping is crucial: it makes possible to identify self as
critical phenomenon in real context and makes possible to
define information measures for conscious experience.
An interesting possibility is that finite fields G(p,1)
(p-adic integers modulo p) could be useful in modelling
self cascades. I made for years ago some attempts in this
direction.
> The idea is that the fractal structure of the phylogenetic tree of the
> p-adic expansion (?) is not strictly self-similar for all possible
> observers. If we only considered self-similar p-adic fractals your
> statement would hold. The idea is that the intersection of observations
> that give the "common worlds" of finite subsets of observers is due to
> the identification (bounded isomorphisms ?) of their phylogenetic trees
> (p-adic structures). It is like saying that an oak tree and a maple tree
> share a "world in common" because they have enough in common in their
> structures...
>
[MP]I would describe this in terms of oak tree subself and maple tree
subself: when they are unentangled the self containing them represents
tree as average of oak and maple trees. In my approach these common
features of oak and maple tree are not identifiable quantitatively: the
rules for how conscious experience is formed are *very* probably not
expressible in formula.
> > > The a priori existence of "different spin states of ordinary spinor" is
> > > merely an inference based on local experience, it only exist in our
> > > minds, in the sense that it is knowable. To posit that the Universe
> > > (Level 1) has any particular features is inconsistent. Properties are
> > > Level 3.
> >
> > I agree if I use instead of the word Universe the word 'set
> > of all possible configuration space spinor fields, all possible
> > universes'.
>
[SPK]
> Ok, I agree this this. It is just that I see this as an
> undifferentiable whole taken as an "in-itself". It is the ONE to me, and
> includes all properties simultaneously. Like Brahma, I think...
>
> > Difference in our notions is that I introduce
> > the space of all possible universes: this is extremely natural
> > from the point of view of physics since every theory predicts
> > myriads of possible universes.
>
> Yes, this is what lead me to my conclusions. It occurred to me that the
> field equations of GR given an infinite number of different space-times
> depending on the values of the variables. I asked myself, what selects
> out the particular world that I observe as locally "concrete". I can
> kick a stone and my foot rebounds, so I say that it is real to me, but
> can I really say that all possible observers would be able to experience
> what I do? After reading about Black-holes and Penrose diagrams showing
> multiple "universes" connected by black holes, I wondered how observers
> in these "other universes" would be able to model each others behavior.
[MP] Actually these other universe correspond to spacetime sheets in TGD.
We are well aware of them: we can see them! TGD:eish world in classical
sense is science fiction in everyday length scales.
> I have been troubled by the scant treatment that has been given to the
> notion of causality by physicists, given how troubling it is to
> philosophers, and have been building a picture that would explain it.
> All this, and other conversations and readings, have lead me here... I
> apologize for my terrible memory for symbols, the math is my worst
> problem! :-( But, discussing my silly idea with you is helping me!
>
Best,
MP
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:36:57 JST