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

*Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:25:38 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 826] Re: [time 822] Re: [time 820] P-adic Physics"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 824] Re: [time 822] Re: [time 820] P-adic Physics"**In reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 820] Re: [time 819] Re: [time 817] Re: [time 816] Re: [time 815] A summary on [time814] Still about construction ofU"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 827] Re: [time 825] Chu spaces, causality, local systems... quantum laws of form? ..."

*> > Perhaps we need to step back and take stock of that ideas
*

*> have led us
*

*> > to this point. Lance and I have been talking on the phone about
*

*> > causality and clocking, toward, I hope, a way of understanding how it is
*

*> > that the "space-times" that are 'observed' by Local Systems are related
*

*> > to each other.
*

Hi, I have not posted to this list in a while because I decided that I did

not have time

to truly delve into Matti's mathematics and this seemed to be the dominant

topic of

conversation. but now I will emerge from my lurking...

I have read Hitoshi's papers again and remain convinced that this is a

fascinating

direction for physics... and remain concerned about how it generalizes to

deal with

weak & strong nuclear forces...

The mention of causality intrigues me here because this is something I've

been working

on in the context of Webmind. It seems that causality is not possible to

assess within

a local system, but only globally, amongst local systems. Do you agree with

this Hitoshi?

At the urging of Youlian Troyanov, I have also been reading some of Pratt's

papers, and was

particularly intrigued by the Stone Gamut paper. However I have some doubts

about the

usefulness of the approach. It is just so damn general -- so we can

generate every

algebra there is; so what? The physical world deals with specific algebras.

However perhaps one can view Chu spaces as a kind of pre-physics. this

might make sense.

first, out of the void, there burst Chu spaces...

Then, a selection phase occurs -- those points in the Stone Gamut that do

not lead to viable

universes die ... and those points that are algebras supporting viable

universes survive.

thus we arrive perhaps at the octonion and lorentzian groups, as

specifically useful points in

the stone gamut coordinatization of algebraic structures...

But, I'm not sure I love this "top-down" approach where you start with a

coordinatization

of everything and then whittle down.

Rather I am still more attracted to the laws of form approach in which you

begin with simple

structure and then increment onto it, adding on more and more structure at

random, retaining

it if it works...

The idea of a local system is nothing but a Laws of Form distinction mark

(identical to

the "boundary" around an individual conscious element that I posit in my

theory of

consciousness). Then the laws of physics can perhaps be viewed as

additional types of boundary composition operators....

Now I will speculate shamelessly, indicating the kind of direction I would

like to go in,

although I have not gone here rigorously yet:

Typographically, the universe as a bunch of local systems looks like

{ [a ] [b ] [c] [d] }

where [ a ] denotes a local system containing a and the { } boundary denotes

a set,

i.e. the universe, containing unordered elements

When one local system interacts with another it can perhaps be viewed as

sending some kind

of "messenger" entity to the other; thus we have a new kind of boundary { }

representing

a voyager from one local system to another?

Whatever goes on inside a local universe is reversible hence causality does

not exist in there.

the sending of voyagers from one local universe to another is irreversible

and thus creates

causality???

The dynamics of the elements inside local universes, and the dynamics

of messengers between local universes, has got to be expressible

algebraically. But all

the algebras implicit in chu spaces are not needed for this.

Quantum logic comes to mind here, but it does not seem to give enough

information -- it doesn't

tell you how to run the dynamics of a local system, it only describes some

symmetries of the

dynamics of the local system.

Anyone ever build a "quantum Laws of Form" ? This would seem to be what we

need here.

A quantum boundary <w> , where the properties of interaction of <> entities

give quantum

dynamics. then the world inside a local system would be represented as a

bag of <> enclosed

entities, whereas the relativistic world amongst local systems would

represented in terms of

interactions of {} messengers.

-- Ben Goertzel

**Next message:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 826] Re: [time 822] Re: [time 820] P-adic Physics"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 824] Re: [time 822] Re: [time 820] P-adic Physics"**In reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 820] Re: [time 819] Re: [time 817] Re: [time 816] Re: [time 815] A summary on [time814] Still about construction ofU"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 827] Re: [time 825] Chu spaces, causality, local systems... quantum laws of form? ..."

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:42 JST
*