In zero energy ontology (ZEO) based theory of consciousness the basic entity is self having causal diamond (CD) has imbedding space correlate. Zero energy states are superpositions of classical time evolutions identifiable as preferred extremals of the action principle and analogous to Bohr orbits. Quantum jumps/state function reductions (SFRs) replace zero energy state with a new one.
There are two kinds of state function reductions. Self corresponds to a sequence unitary time evolutions followed by "small" state function reductions (SSFRs) as TGD counterparts of weak measurements. Self dies in "big" state function reduction (BSFR) and re-incarnates with an opposite arrow of time. During the sequence of unitary time evolutions followed by SSFRs defining self the passive boundary of CD and the members of state pairs at it are not changed whereas the active boundary recedes from passive boundary in statistical sense and also the members of state pairs at it are affected. BSFR creates a new variant about the unchanging part of self diving kind of soul. Kind of Karma's cycle would be in question.
At this moment the most plausible view about zero energy ontology (ZEO) is that the sizes of CDs serving as correlates for selves stay below fixed upper bound during the sequences of life cycles in opposite time directions. The size scale would be reduced in BSFR and then increase as the active boundary to which sensory input is assignable recedes farther away from the fixed passive boundary. The reduction of the size implies that all reincarnations of self experience "childhood". This option allows to avoid the growth of self to entire sub-cosmology.
The dramatic prediction is that selves and corresponding CDs has more or less fixed position in imbedding space H= M^4xCP_2. Our past would be living and consciousness. In particular, our memories live and also evolve in geometric past and to remember is to communicate with these entities. M^8-H duality gives support for this picture and allows to understand the failure of precise determinism of the classical theory.
The notion of self makes sense for systems with arbitrarily large size scales and one can solve several cosmological time anomalies by assuming that even astrophysical objects correspond to selves, which repeatedly reincarnate with opposite time direction and evolve as number theoretical vision about TGD predicts.
In the case of jellyfish this picture suggests that sub-..-sub-selves of jellyfish at some level of the hierarchy - perhaps the cells of jellyfish -, have very short life-cycle and remain therefore in the immature state. To live in an eternal childhood is to die often enough!
For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.
2 comments:
Dear Matti,
how does ZEO deal with the Parmenides paradox?
An important italian philosopher (Emanuele Severino) has presented in our days a renewed formulation of the impossibility of every change, that Greek philosopher Parmenides had presented for the first time in early fifth century BC.
Considering a specific thing (let's say X) which is determined as a "unity" of informations, shapes and energy states, we can say "it has become a different thing" because we experience it is "changed".
Indeed behind this simple idea of "change", to a more careful consideration, we must recognize that we are contradicting ourselves: infact the necessary condition to be able to say that over time "X has become something else (a different thing)" is that (X = not-X): this is a clear contradiction because we are identifying X and not-X. This contradiction is not solved even if we say that, over time, some aspects of X had become a nothing because we are identifying X (an existence) and nothing (the inexistence).
It would seem that the only way to resolve the contradiction is to say that X has remained totally unchanged: X = X, but in this way we have to negate the changing.
How does ZEO deal with this formulation of Parmenides paradox?
Is changing real or is it an impossible contradicion ?
As a physicist I do not find myself in Parmenides paradox. X has become a new state does not mean X=not-X. Severino identifies state
as concept with its particular representative X and this is category error.
Physicist introduces more general notion: quantum state. Quantally: Quantum state X has become quantum state Y. No paradox. "Becoming" means quantum..
Same classically: classical time evolution leads from classical state X to Y. Now "becoming" means continuous time evolution.
Post a Comment