Thursday, December 19, 2013

One Mind theory, Akashic records, and negentropic entanglement

Larry Dossey has published a book with title "One Mind: How Our Individual Mind Is Part of a Greater Consciousness and Why It Matters". There is also an article in "Where Does Creativity Come From?" on The Huffington Post.

The article is an excerpt from the book of Dossey and begins with a nice story about miracle like behavior of a five year old child told by a developmental psychologist Joseph Chilton Pearce. I recommend warmly reading it. I have actually had a similar experience in which my younger daughter - I think at age of 5 or 6 - shocked me by saying something very wise that only a very wise adult could have said. It was really weird. What was also peculiar that very many adults behaved in her company as she would have been an adult. I have also had a couple of personal "great experiences", which transformed my view about the world completely and gave problems to ponder for the rest of life.

The key meassage of the book is that there is something one might call One Mind, which serves as an endless storage of wisdom (more technically information) and creativity.

Does the notion of One Mind have place in TGD framework? In TGD framework I speak about a hierarchy of conscious entities. Or - strictly speaking - hierarchy of experiences since the assumption about experiencers might be too much if one accepts that the basic element of consciousness is act of re-creation of the Universe and that quantum jumps are just ordinary state function reductions. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that the latter assumption is true. So the questions are following.

Questions: The entire universe as conscious entity recreating itself could be called God. Could it be identified also as One Mind or is the latter something different? Does One Mind corresponds to conscious entity or some - not necessarily conscious - information source from which it is possible to draw information via conscious experiences?

I must introduce some aspects of TGD inspired theory of consciousness in an attempt to answer this question inside my own jail of thought.

  1. Quantum jump - basically state function reduction - would correspond to moment of consciousness- re-creation but in different sense as in standard quantum theory. The division to separate conscious entities takes place and state function reduction in the ordinary sense reducing entanglement and splitting system to subsystem and its complement could be the quantum physical correlate for it.

    Remark: The notion of state function is richer in Zero Energy Ontology than in standard quantum theory and - most importantly - free of the standard difficulty of quantum measurement theory. The most radical rethinking relates to the relationship between subjective time and geometric time, in particular the arrow of time.

  2. Standard quantum physics would not give anything more than random sequences of state function reductions: no quantum invariants which be called soul or Mind or One Mind. This is not surprising and is mathematically reflected by the fact that in standard physics there exists no information measure. There is only a measure for entropy applying also to entanglement and measuring lack of information - about the state of Schr&oml;dinger cat - to use the standard illustration.

  3. The p-adic approach to cognition gives rise to a p-adic variant of Shannon entropy. The surprise is that p-adic entanglement entropy can be negative and serve therefore as a measure for conscious or potentially conscious information. The standard interpretation for this information cannot hold true. Rather, the information is about the relationship between the cat and bottle of poisson. Negentropic entanglement carries information as rules such that the instances of the rule correspond to the superposed state pairs - or n-tuples in case of negentropic entanglement between n particles. The form of this entanglement is completely unique and one can write a general formula for it in terms of permutation symbols when one knows the number degenerate states assignable to the sheets of n-fold covering of imbedding space assignable to a system with Planck constant heff =nh. The density matrix associated with any decomposition of negentropically entangled n-particle system to a pair is proportional to unit matrix.

    The negentropic states can be measured without changing them by interaction free measurement. My interpretation of negentropic entanglement is as "Akashic records" storing information about the Universe to the structure of the Universe in the sequence of recreations giving rise to more and more complex quantum Universe. Interaction free measurement means their reading without affecting them at all - this is however an idealization since small damage can occur just as in the reading of ordinary book. Universe is a Big Library in this view.

  4. If Negentropy Maximization Principle defines the variational principle of consciousness as a mathematical analog of second law, negentropic entanglement increases and implies evolution. NMP tells essentially that if the decompositions of a system to pairs of subsystems are such that density matrix is proportional to a unit matrix, nothing happens in the reduction. In ordinary measurement theory one cannot say anything about this situation since one can only say that quantum measurement leads to the eigenspace of measured observables: in TGD the density matrix is the universal observable. The total negentropic entanglement cannot decrease in quantum jump: new items appear to the Akashic library. It can be however transferred between subsystems and this increase would be the new element in quantum consciousness theory.
I am cautious and conclude with a question rather than answer: Could the Akashic records - the Big Library - correspond to the One Mind - to information source from which we can read ideas and insights and whis the source of creativity - or rather, recreativity;-)?


storage in Darlinghurst said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PlatoHagel said...

Matti Pitkanen:I am cautious and conclude with a question rather than answer: Could the Akashic records - the Big Library - correspond to the One Mind - to information source from which we can read ideas and insights and whis the source of creativity - or rather, recreativity;-)

That is an interesting perspective and one which I have held in mind for a long time. Not so much one mind, but a collective unconscious(Carl Jung), or, information that can be deemed to exist(PLato's world of ideas) and all we have to do is remember it.

When my son was around the same age, 4 he asked me a interesting question. He said, "Dad is this neighborhood the world?"

These deeper insights(they come from a place inside) are indeed like pearls to me, and I do believe that we can have a deeper connection to that ole wise man that we may find as we explore, is to recognize this wisdom is located within self.

Comparative analogy may be like the icloud for data storage?


Anonymous said...

Dear Matti,

Does spinor wave function an objective reality that associate with CP2 and induced on the space time surface? For example can one say it is some another objective reality that relates to space time as square root of metric of space time?

I am really interested to know that what do you think about g=h+e that h is lie algebra of rotation and e is generators of boost.
Can one say that jones inclusion has classical counterpart that relates to finite dimensional matrices of rotation and boost included to larger finite dimensional matrices of rotation and boost!?

Matti Pitkanen said...

Dear Plato,

you mention comparative analogy. What are the quantum physical correlates of analogy? This is a challenge for quantum consciousness theorists. It should relate to the structure of conscious experience consisting of mental images. Could category theorists have caught something about the mathematical essence of analogy? Morphisms between objects as one form of analogies?

Matti Pitkanen said...

Dear Hamed,

an interesting question. I must put my words cautiously since I did not understand the first question;-). Instead of trying to answer "yes" or "no". I just state what I believe are the facts. I hope this list has something to with your question;-).

The function of second quantized induced spinors is to define WCW spinor structure with gamma matrices constructed as combinations of oscillator operators. Also fermionic quantum states are constructed using the oscillator operators. One has always quantum superposition of the surfaces carrying these feermionic states

The induced spinor fields do not carry color: only electroweak quantum numbers. Imbedding space spinor harmonics carry color quantum numbers and are assignable to ground states of the conformal representations. These ground states correspond to elementary particles at point-like limit.

Thus it seems that induced spinor fields are like spinor fields assigned with string world sheets: they are not directly visible at the level of elementary particle physics but are necessary to understand it.

Same applies to space-time sheets: one has always superposition of them in quantum states: one can speak about single space-time surface only in finite measurement resolution - as an equivalence class of space-time sheets.

An interesting conjecture inspired by quantum classical correspondence is that the classical correlation functions for local quantities (averaging of products over point pairs with same M^4 coordinate differences) are identical with the quantal ones for all space-time surfaces in the superposition. One could say that "quantum average space-time" corresponds to the equivalence class of these space-time surfaces. This would be fuzzy geometry at space-time level!
Also classical Noether charges in Cartan algebra would be identical with their quantum counterparts for all space-time surface in the superposition if quantum classical correspondence is taken really seriously. I raised earlier an interesting question: could it be that classical Noether momentum for Kahler action could correspond to inertial momentum and equal to the quantal four-momentum assignable to super-conformal representations and identifiable as gravitational four-momentum.

One could also argue that the fermionic Fock states for all space-time surfaces in superposition have same fermionic quantum numbers. Manyfermion states are interpreted as Boolean statements and in zero energy ontology as equivalence of Boolean statements A<-->B associated with positive and negative energy parts of the state.

Could one require that classical correlation functions for modes of the induced spinor fields are same as quantal correlators. And could one identify correlation functions for gauge bosons expressed using representation in terms of fermonic oscillator operators with correlation functions defined by classical gauge boson fields?

Matti Pitkanen said...

Dear Hamed,

Concerning your second question. One can assign to the series of Jones inclusions a hierarchy of quantum phases coming as roots of unity and to these one can assign simply laced Lie-algebras and corresponding quantum groups with fractional dimension.

I have been always thinking in terms of compact groups associated with these algebras. Where also complex forms of the algebras (say SO(3,1) ) allowing to talk about boosts make sense is not clear to me. This area of mathematics makes is magic to me. I know only some magic results but cannot deduce them.

PlatoHagel said...

Hi Matti,

Most certainly there would have to be signs of this ability to have a correlate to experience and some of the best would have been those who not only see the math as an abstraction, but do have some mental imagery being expressed at the same time.

Arthur Miller: Einstein and Schrödinger never fully accepted the highly abstract nature of Heisenberg's quantum mechanics, says Miller. They agreed with Galileo's assertion that "the book of nature is written in mathematics", but they also realized the power of using visual imagery to represent mathematical symbols.

Again, for further examination,

Dirac:When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way.

So as imagery as applied to consciousness, this is a way the striving for some is the mathematical description of the imagery involved.

Like mind then, for any seeker who moves further inside, that to have such an experience, as in the dream world, is the idea that underneath any imagery , an abstraction may be written?


PlatoHagel said...

Klein's Munich Wunderkammern

Mathematical Wunderkammern

This I see as an inherent feature of the evolving projective form of geometry, sought to be exemplified as encapsulating nature?


Matti Pitkanen said...

You are touching fascinating question. Maybe we think basically in terms of images and language is based on naming these images and relations between them. Even category theory with its objects and arrows relies on images.

On the other hand, language is speech or internal speech and thus sounds. Usually we think abut sound as higher level emergent phenomenon. Sound is basically N-particle phenomenon: no sound if you have only single particle in vacuum.

Stringy picture about the interactions between particles making sense also in TGD suggests that maybe string world sheets connecting particles and forcing them to oscillate in correlated manner could give rise to the analog of sound at fundamental level.

PlatoHagel said...

I think one can look at the science now and say there is a conversion process that takes place. Trying to be scientifically responsible that conversion process can take on new meaning

You might be interested in this.

TED Talks: Evan Grant: Making sound visible through cymatics

Also Cymatics

For example, in 1704 Sir Isaac Newton struggled to devise mathematical formulas to equate the vibrational frequency of sound waves with a corresponding wavelength of light. He failed to find his hoped-for translation algorithm, but the idea of correspondence took root, and the first practical application of it appears to be the clavecin oculaire, an instrument that played sound and light simultaneously. It was invented in 1725. Charles Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus, achieved the same effect with a harpsichord and lanterns in 1790, although many others were built in the intervening years, on the same principle, where by a keyboard controlled mechanical shutters from behind which colored lights shne. By 1810 even Goethe was expounding correspondences between color and other senses in his book, Theory of Color. Pg 53, The Man Who Tasted Shapes, by Richard E. Cytowic, M.D.

PlatoHagel said...

See Also: LHC Sound

PlatoHagel said...

How To Make Sound Out of Anything

Anonymous said...

Greeks said tetrahedron was the basic component or building block of phenomenal world (of particle physics). Well... taken to other dimensions, they call it now "amplituhedron":

Scientists Discover a Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics

The non-locality of these jewels is if not the, at least one manifestation of "One mind". Hen kai agathon, here's a tost to Plato!

PlatoHagel said...

Of course it's a foundational application that begins in anyone's mind, not that it's one mind, it just always begins in that way?:)

The inner revelation is that it always begin with the geometry, and in another sense sound covers the schematic revelation of such a design just as experience does?

Matti Pitkanen said...

The mathematician(s) inside(?) me argue that it is symmetries, which are behind tetrahedron which is shadow on the wall of Plato's cave;-): Also other Platonic solids are important. Tetrahedron -dual of cube - is the simplest one of them. It is interesting that space can be filled with cubes but not with their duals.

Tetrahedron has simple symmetries behind it: permutations of four objects. Amplituhedron represents a gigantic symmetry Yangian. Yangian was introduced originally by a group led by Faddeev. In M=4 SUSY one has conformal Yangian associated with 4-D Minkowski space.

Yangian is Lie algebra with co-algebra structure containing besides product co-product which is roughly time reversal of the product (now commutator). Co-product is a really cute concept and nicely fits with the idea about universe as a computer: 3-particle vertices perhaps representing something like + and x rafined to direct sum and tensor product of Hilbert spaces and represented geometrically as operations for the orbits of partonic 2-surface. Geometry and algebra meeting each other!

In TGD and therefore in effectively 2-D case one would have Yangian associated with infinite-D conformal group (symplectric transformations of boundary of CD and Kac Moody associated with light-like orbits of partonic 2-surfaces). What is this Yangian? Can human mind understand this kind of complexity at some level at least? Even the definition of Yangian is recursive rather than given by closed formulas.

It would give multi local variants of local Lie-algebra generators with partonic 2-surfaces defining the loci. Ordinary Yangian would result at the limit when partonic 2-surfaces are reduced to point: this produces some consolation - at least to me;-).

Anonymous said...

Oh god I wish I understood any of that lie and yangian stuff. Euclidean 3D space IS a cube so it can be filled with cubes with 100% of volume. But regular tetrahedron is self-dual, dual of cube is octahedron. But interesting slip there Matti, slips like that are often signs that something is trying to tell us something. Was Aristotle simply a geometric idiot when he said space can be filled perfectly with tetrahedrons, or did he mean by space something else than a 3D cube? What kind of spaces can be perfectly "filled" or generated by regular* tetrahedrons, or more generally by simplexes? And would such spaces appear "curved" in relation to cubed space?

(* cube can be filled with non-regular tetrahedra, so called minimal tetrahedrons, so Aristotle was "right", but we could and should look at his claim even more deeply)

PonderSeekDiscover said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ulla said...

Bad link in your post, here the right one.

Matti Pitkänen said...

Thank you.