Matti Pitkanen (matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi)
Thu, 9 Sep 1999 08:26:45 +0300 (EET DST)
Hi all,
I self-centeredly comment the projection idea from my own point of
view because I am just now working with it.
****
[SPK]
Dear Hitoshi,
Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
>
> Dear Stephen,
>
> stephen p. king <stephenk1@home.com> wrote:
>
> Subject: [time 711] Re: [time 708] Time operator => Ensembles of clocks?
snip
[SPK]
Yes, I am trying to see how we can recover a local approximation
of Riemannian geometry as the way that the individual posets of
observations of each of the LS's are "ordered". We need to show that it
is necessary and sufficient that the observations of any LS, e.g. a set
of classical center of mass particles, are arranged in a way that we can
think of relations among them in terms of a Riemannian metric. It could
be that we only need a Minkowski metric, because, I think that gravity
is defined in terms of the differences between the local space-times of
different LS's.
Remember that I am thinking of space-time in a way that is very
similar
to how Schommers thinks of it: "...we have argued that physically real
processes do not take place $in$, but are $projected on$ space-time. The
coordinated [metrics, connections, etc.] and time are not accessible to
empirical tests and we can only observe distances between bodies and
time intervals in connection to processes: There is no exception to this
law. Thus, we can conclude that the phenomenon space-time comes into
being through bodies and processes. ... Objects and processes of the
real world [the poset of observations that a finite number of LS's can
agree upon] are perceived by an interaction process with our sense
organs; this reality is pictured by our perceiving apparatus, and the
phenomenon space-time belongs to the perceiving apparatus."
pg. 263, Quantum Theory and Pictures of Reality...
[MP] Amusing that you speak about projections! I am just now trying to
finally resolve the question whether our sensory organs carry the primary
sensory experience or not. There are lots of pros and cons, Libet's
experiments and the identification of sensory qualia being the most
might pros.
One argument against sensory organs as primary experiencers
is the phenomenon of projected pain. We have physical cause of
pain in head but we feel the pain in neck. Thus it would seem
that brain indeed calculates the position coordinates of pain
and pain is experienced at the level of sensory homunculus inside cortex
(these are real objects, but do not necessarily experience the sensory
experience). This would not fit with the idea that pain in the leg
is in the leg. But situation is not at all so simple.
In TGD the 2+6-dimensional flag manifold F_2xF_3 characterizing different
choices of quantization axis for spin and color quantum numbers and
represents fundamental zero modes and hence should characterize
the fundamental information of sensory experience. I have only now began
to realize how fundamental role of F_2xF_3 is: it leads to direct
quantitative model for how basic data of sensory experience is
represented.
a) F_3 is 3+3 dimensional symplectic manifolds: position and velocity of
object of sensory experience!!
b) F_2 is sphere and its points must characterize some direction. Perhaps
the normal of surface representing object of visual experience.
For auditory experience the positions and velocities of objects of
perceptive field are not enough: also the state of observer must be
characterized and is characterize by the direction of ear-to-ear axis:
here would be identification of F_2 coordinate in this case (sense of
balance relates to this).
It is now clear that cortex participates the calculation of F_2xF_3
coordinates and communicates the coordinates to primary sensory organs to
be experienced and I have general vision for how this happens.
Thus my basic problem is following:
a) It is obvious that the positions of *external world* are
calculated in brain and we experience the position coordinates
and this could occur quite well in primary sensory organ where
objects are most naturally formed as cognitive spacetime sheets.
b) But what about pain and experiences occurring inside our body: are
the position coordinates of pain computed in cortex and projected
to the source of pain. In some cases computation
would go wrong and pain would be experienced in wrong place. Or
are somatosensory experiences different. There are many other
explanations for phantom leg and projected pain.
BTW, for my naive mind the painstaking iterative calculation that brain
does guessing positions of objects in retina in real world and comparing
the secondary sensory experience (this involves coherent light
and microtubules as wave guides and idea of sensory window, too long
story to be told here) yielded by them with the real experience in order
to find the best fit and hence the best representation, is quite
convincing evidence for the existence of real world in geometric sense.
*********
Best,
MP
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:40 JST