tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post5092373213562123454..comments2024-01-22T11:26:37.599-08:00Comments on TGD diary: The mystery of time againMatti Pitkänenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-9685271728576282862012-05-08T22:36:35.028-07:002012-05-08T22:36:35.028-07:00Matti:
Thanks for your extensive reply.
I hope y...Matti:<br /><br />Thanks for your extensive reply.<br /><br />I hope you don't mind my non-linear mode of communication. I glue here a link to a webpage that resonates with your book addressing the Fermi paradox. <br /><br />http://www.kurzweilai.net/answering-fermi-s-paradox◘Fractality◘noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-53127840682806208702012-05-08T04:21:35.994-07:002012-05-08T04:21:35.994-07:00To Orwin:
I do not know what you mean with ration...To Orwin:<br /><br />I do not know what you mean with rational mechanics.matpitka@luukku.comhttp://tgdtheory.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-43020801387264221442012-05-08T03:27:20.018-07:002012-05-08T03:27:20.018-07:00Matti,
Rational mechanics is not determinist: we ...Matti,<br /><br />Rational mechanics is not determinist: we have determinism from particle metaphysics, Leibniz and Laplace. Voluntarism or Unitarianism is also very ancient: Patanjali called it "willfulness without origin or terminus," and sought a path (pathan) of semantic balance or grace, also known as the Middle Way or Golden Mean (Aristotle, Confucius).<br /><br />The infinity of branes you describe forms a clone (http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4531): principal quantum orbitals are like that, converging on the ionization energy, and the second quantized field follows directly. But clones yield only first-order logic, while the topos theory I mentioned earlier gives a full modal logic with possible worlds and thus possibility of choice. This or an equivalent you need to generate coverings and WCW. <br /><br />I don't like Pribram's input-output interpretation: CS Peirce rubbished that at the beginning. But von Uexkuell, Jakobson and Lacan picked up the feedback and interactions, where the complexity ranges beyond what can ever be axiomatized (http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2108).Orwinhttp://cogprints.org/7661/.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-47695277195370910132012-05-07T21:12:53.882-07:002012-05-07T21:12:53.882-07:00To Fractality:
I forgot to consider one possible ...To Fractality:<br /><br />I forgot to consider one possible interpretation for the hierarchy of Planck constants. Could it be space-time correlate for what happens in quantum measurement? No! As the following arguments show. <br /><br />Consider first the interpretation for quantum measurement in terms of quantum classical correspondence.<br /><br />a) Initially one has a superposition of orthogonal basis states. Then each state in this superposition entangles with macroscopic degrees of freedom, and one obtains a superposition of pairs of states. A second system - the measuring classical system- enters the game. It's states are macroscopic- like positions of a pointer.<br /><br />b) In TGD Universe macroscopic degrees of freedom correspond to zero modes not contributing to the metric of WCW. Classical induced Kahler field at partonic 2-surfaces is a zero mode, a purely classical variable. If effective 2-dimensionality holds true, the interior degrees of freedom for 3-surfaces represent zero modes too apart from normal derivatives so that one does not have genuine 2-dimensionality. <br /> <br />c) At the first end of CD -initial state- one has a superposition of space-time surfaces which degenerate to single 3-surface, the prepared state. The normal derivatives of imbedding space coordinates at partonic 2-surfaces (or space-like 3-surfaces) correlate with the quantum numbers of quantum state in the basis considered. Quantum classical correspondence requires this. Bohr orbit property implies that the distributions of normal derivatives of H coordinates form a discrete set. This is like quantization of canonical momenta. To concretize this, consider as an exercise what happens in Stern-Gerlach experiment: electron beam splits to two in magnetic field with gradient.<br /><br />d) At the second end of CD the superposition of space-time surfaces degenerates again since the branches co-incide but only after the state function reduction. This degeneration condition would be the boundary condition at both ends of CDs. It would be space-time correlate for what happens in state function preparation and reduction: entanglement disappears. This does not happen in the case of negentropic entanglement.<br /><br /><br />Also the hierarchy of Planck constants realized in terms of singular coverings involves branching which degenerates at the ends of CDs. How does this relate to quantum measurement?<br /><br />a) For hbar= n_1n_2*hbar_0 light-like orbit of partonic 2-surface defining wormhole throat branches to n_1 branches at wormhole throat. Space-like 3-surface at the boundary of CD to branches n_2 3-surfaces. At partonic 2-surface branching to n_1n_2 surfaces occurs so that space-time interior is n_1n_2-branched. This can be also expressed in terms of brane language.<br /><br />b) Now one does not however have a quantum superposition of these orbit but each orbit is simultaneously present. *Direct sum* - quantum superposition- is replaced with *tensor product*: many particle states consisting of states at different branches of space-time surface. Therefore this situation does not correspond to entangled superposition in state function reduction. <br /><br />The situation is geometrically analogous to that for branes with N copies which become infinitesimally near to each other and co-incide. One has second quantization of the original system- not its measurement : this conforms with quantum math ideas discussed in previous postings.<br /><br /><br />t.<br />*The state funmatpitka@luukku.comhttp://tgdtheory.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-39351659655091088092012-05-07T20:13:30.341-07:002012-05-07T20:13:30.341-07:00If one accepts the non-materialistic view - that i...If one accepts the non-materialistic view - that is quantum jump as a re-creation, then causality of volition is unavoidably the core element of consciousness. <br /><br />For the materialistic approach (Pribram) the causality of volition reduces to that of deterministic laws of nature and the challenge is to why we should have the illusory experiences of choice and decision. Why almost everything we say spontaneously reflects these experiences? To exclude from world view something so fundamental is madness. This madness originated in the Newtonian revolution, which led to the belief that the laws of Nature must be fully deterministic.<br /><br />Personally I have never experienced the wonderful feeling that as a physicist in deterministic world I can in principle predict everything: I am the Overlord. But I remember how difficult it was still to get the courage to see the absolutely obvious: the majority of the science community is deadly wrong. The psychological root of materialism are in a primitive greed for power.<br /><br />Also the Boolean logic has beautiful physical counterpart: Fock state basis for fermions gives rise to Boolean algebra and in ZEO zero energy states have interpretation as statements A--->B . Quantum superposition at the other end even makes possible A "may imply" B ("may" and "must" are discussed in the article of the link).matpitka@luukku.comhttp://tgdtheory.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-83428123975287822312012-05-07T13:51:03.575-07:002012-05-07T13:51:03.575-07:00Pribram is a cognitive theorist and materialist (l...Pribram is a cognitive theorist and materialist (like Jung!) and does not have a phenomenology, just a view of neural process. For phenomenology there is this very powerful prime representation theory: http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4464.<br /><br />Certainly, grasping relativities of motion is an effort, and relaxed awareness is not metric. <br />But how then causality at the heart of consciousness? That reminds me of Ken Wilber. But QCD = QFT aint a done deal either.Orwinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-11892990822092793732012-05-07T06:11:46.564-07:002012-05-07T06:11:46.564-07:00To Fractality:
Good question! I do not have clear...To Fractality:<br /><br />Good question! I do not have clearcut answer.<br />Whether the overlap of CDs is forbidden for some reason remains an open question. This would simply the vision about Feynman diagrammatics. One possibility is that overlap is a necessary condition for negentropic entanglement: flux tubes would connect only space-time sheets inside CDs which overlap. <br /><br />Second question relates to whether space-time sheets can continue beyond CDs. This is possible and generalize Feynman diagrams suggest this. CD would be kind of localized spotlight of consciousness is this is the case.matpitka@luukku.comhttp://tgdtheory.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-36209894169820605112012-05-06T21:16:45.349-07:002012-05-06T21:16:45.349-07:00Matti:
How does this negentropic entanglement rel...Matti:<br /><br />How does this negentropic entanglement relate to the notion of CDs? Could it be seen as an "overlap" of CDs within CDs?◘Fractality◘noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-70010434381409867992012-05-06T19:51:27.123-07:002012-05-06T19:51:27.123-07:00To Ulla:
This finding about editable past suppor...To Ulla:<br /><br />This finding about editable past supports the quantum superposition of space-times - space-time surfaces in TGD framework. Stationary phase approximation allows to speak about single space-time in semiclassical approximation. Each quantum jump replaces it with a new one in each scale and geometric past indeed changes.<br /><br />To Fractality:<br /><br />Synchronizity realized as negentropic entanglement assignable to magnetic flux tubes becomes quite concrete in all scales.<br /><br /><br />To Orwin: I am not enthusiastic on covariant tensor on perception. It would be forcing of consciousness theory to the mathematical format of relativities.<br />Gestures reversible- speech not. What does this statement mean?matpitka@luukku.comhttp://tgdtheory.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-24594589804847955292012-05-06T19:27:12.914-07:002012-05-06T19:27:12.914-07:00On this site you see neurologist Karl Pribram make...On this site you see neurologist Karl Pribram make his peace with the Jungians: http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/<br />consciousness.php<br /><br />He says the brain works by Fourier analysis, which encompasses many frequencies in one process, and, yes, "now" is scale-independent.<br /><br />Also that perception depends on covariant tensors, and action on the contra-variant or affine. That's the strongest lead I've found in a long while. <br /><br />Interestingly, gestures are reversible, but speech isn't, and language generates history.Orwinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-75242894267364415362012-05-06T15:17:05.256-07:002012-05-06T15:17:05.256-07:00Matti:
"It seems, indeed, as though time, fa...Matti:<br /><br /><i>"It seems, indeed, as though time, far from being an abstraction, is a concrete continuum which contains qualities or basic conditions that manifest themselves simultaneously in different places through parallelisms that cannot be explained causally, as, for example, in cases of the simultaneous occurrence of identical thoughts, symbols, or psychic states."</i><br /><br /><b>- C.G. Jung</b><br /><br />One and the same transcendental meaning might manifest itself simultaneously in the human speech and in the arrangement of an external and independent event. Synchronicity is a phenomenon of the Universe. <br /><br />Regards.◘Fractality◘noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-41398693778952681382012-05-06T11:07:26.382-07:002012-05-06T11:07:26.382-07:00an experiment that was recently published in the j...an experiment that was recently published in the journal Science showing that scientists could retroactively change something that had happened in the past. Particles had to decide how to behave when they hit a beam splitter. Later on, the experimenter could turn a second switch on or off. It turns out that what the observer decided at that point, determined what the particle did in the past. Regardless of the choice you, the observer, make, it is you who will experience the outcomes that will result. The linkages between these various histories and universes transcend our ordinary classical ideas of space and time.<br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-death-exist-new-theo_b_384515.html?<br /><br />Link from Sarfatti. He thinks much of time and death.Ullahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634036177244152897noreply@blogger.com