Is Negentropy Maximization Principle needed as an independent principle?

The proposal has been that Negentropy Maximization Principle (NMP) (see this and this) serves as the basic variation principle of the dynamics of conscious experience. NMP says that the information related to the contents of consciousness increases for the whole system even though it can decrease for the subsystem. Mathematically, NMP is very similar to the second law  although it states something completely opposite. Second law follows from statistical physics and is not an independent physical law.  Is the situation the same  with the NMP?  Is NMP needed at all as a fundamental principle or does it follow from number theoretic physics?

The number theoretic evolution is such a powerful principle that one must ask whether NMP is needed as a separate principle or whether it is a consequence of number theoretical quantum physics, just like the second law follows from ordinary quantum theory.

2 additional   aspects are involved. Evolution can in adelic physics (see this) be seen as an unavoidable  increase in the algebraic complexity characterized by the dimension n=h_eff/h₀ of extension of rationals  associated with the polynomial define space-time surface at the fundamental level by socalled M⁸-H duality (see this and this). There is also the possibility to identify a  quantum correlate  for    ethics in terms of quantum coherence: a good deed corresponds to  a creation of quantum coherence and the evil deed to its destruction.

How do these two aspects relate to the  NMP? Is NMP  an independent dynamical principle or a consequence of  number theoretic (adelic) quantum physics?

Consider in the sequel "big" state function reduction (BSFR) as the counterpart of the ordinary state function reduction. I'm not completely sure whether the following arguments can be also applied to SSFRs for which the arrow of time does not change.

One can consider two alternative formulations for NMP.

Option I

Option I is the simpler and physically more plausible option.

1.  BSFR divides the quantum entangled system at the active boundary of CD into two parts, which are analogous to the measurement apparatus and the  measured system.  The selection of this partition is completely free and decided by the system. This choice corresponds to an  act of free will. Depending on conditions to be discussed,  the action of the measurement to this pair can be trivial in which case the entanglement  is not reduced. The measurement  can also reduce the entanglement partially or completely  and the p-adic  entanglement negentropy and entropy decreases or becomes zero.  
2. If the partition into two parts is completely free and if the choice is such that NMP, or whatever the principle in question is,  allows BSFR,  the quantum coherence decreases.  Number theoretic evolution suggests that the principle telling when BSFR can occur is number theoretic.

    There is a cascade of BSFRs since BSFRs are also possible for the emerging untangled subsystem and its complement. The cascade stops when the entanglement becomes stable.

3. What  condition could determine whether  the reduction of the  entanglement takes place? What could make  the entanglement stable against BSFR?  

   Number theoretical vision  suggests an answer. Physical intuition suggests that bound states represent a typical  example of stable  quantum entanglement.  Bound states correspond to Galois confined states (see this, this, this, and this) for which the momenta of fermions are algebraic integers  in an extension of rationals but total momentum has integer valued components. This mechanism for the formation of the  bound states would be universal.

   A natural number theoretical proposal is that the entanglement is stable if the entanglement probabilities  obtained by diagonalizing the density matrix characterizing the entanglement belong to an extension of rational, which is larger than the extension, call it E,  defined by the polynomial P  defining the space-time surface. An even stronger condition,  inspired by the fact that cognition is based on rational numbers, is  that BSFR can take place only if they are   rational.

   This kind of entanglement would be outside the number system used and one can argue that this  forces the stability of  the entanglement. A weaker statement is that the reduction is possible to a subspace of the state space for which the entanglement probabilities belong to E (or are rational).

4. This option could  replace NMP as a criterion with a purely number theoretical principle. This does not however mean that NMP would not be preserved as a principle analogous to the second law and implied by the number theoretic evolution implied by the hierarchy of extensions of rationals.

Could free will as the ability to do evil or good deeds reduce to number theory that is to the choice of a partition, which leads to either increase or decrease of entanglement negentropy and therefore of quantum coherence?

The basic objection can be formulated as a question. How can the conscious entity know whether a given choice of partition leads to BSFR or not? Memory must be involved. Only by making this kind of choices, a system with a memory can learn the outcome of a given choice. How could the self learn, which deeds are good and which are evil? The answer is suggested by the biologically motivated view of survival instinct and origin of ego (see this) based on SSFRs as a generalization of Zeno effect.

>
1. Conscious entity has a self characterized by the set of observables measured in the sequence of SSFRs. BSFR as a reduction of entanglement occurs when a new set of observables not commuting with the original set are measured. In BSFR self "dies" (loses consciousness). Second BSFR means reincarnation with the original arrow of time.
2. The perturbations of the system at both boundaries of CD are expected to induce BSFRs and to occur continually. Therefore the arrow of time is fixed only in the sense that it dominates over the opposite arrow.
3. Self preserves its identity (in particular memories defining it) if the second BSFR leads to a set of observables, which does not differ too much from the original one. The notions of survival instinct and ego would reduce to an approximate Zeno effect.
4. This mechanism would allow the self to learn the distinction between good and evil and also what is dangerous and what is not. A BSFR inducing only a brief period of life with a reversed arrow of time could teach the system when the BSFR leads to a reduction of entanglement and loss of coherence.

   The harmless BSFRs could provide a mechanism of imagination making survival possible. Intelligent systems could do this experimentation at the level of a self representation of a system rather than in real life and the development of complex self representations would distinguish higher life forms from those at a lower evolutionary level.

Option II

Option II is stronger than Option I but looks rather complex. I have considered it already before. NMP would select a partition for which the negentropy gain is maximal in BSFR or at least, the decrease of the negentropy is minimal. One must however define what one means with negentropy gain.

Before considering whether this condition can be precise, it is good to list some objections.

1. Is the selection of this kind of optimal partition possible? How can the system know which partition is optimal without trying all alternatives? Doing this would reduce the situation to the first option.
2. Free will as ability do also evil deeds seems to be eliminated as a possibility to either increase or decrease entanglement negentropy and therefore quantum coherence by choosing the partition of the system so that it reduces negentropy.
3. If the BSFR cascade would lead to a total loss of quantum entanglement, the entanglement negentropy would always be zero and NMP would not say anything interesting. On the other hand, if the selection of the partition is optimal and the number theoretic criterion for the occurrence of the reduction holds true, it could imply that nothing happens for the entanglement. Again the NMP would be trivial.
4. What does one mean with the maximal negentropy gain?

What does one mean with a maximal negentropy gain?

Option II for   NMP says that for a given partition  BSFR occurs if the entanglement negentropy increases maximally. What does one mean with  entanglement negentropy gain? This notion is also useful for Option I although it is  not involved with the criterion.

1. Entanglement  negentropy refers to the negentropy related to the passive edge of the CD (Zeno effect). Passive boundary involves negentropic entanglement  because NMP does not allow  a complete elimination  of quantum entanglement (bound state entanglement is stable). The new passive boundary of CD  emerging in the BSFR corresponds to the previously active boundary of CD.
2. For option I for which the concept of good/bad is meaningful, the number theoretical criterion could  prevent BSFR and stop the BSFR cascade. There is however  no guarantee that the total entanglement negentropy would increase in the  entire BSFR cascade.  This would make the term "NMP" obsolete unless NMP follows in a statistical sense from number theoretic evolution: this looks however plausible.

   The   unavoidable increase of the number theoretical complexity would force the increase of p-adic entanglement negentropy and  NMP as an analog of the second law would follow from the hierarchy of extensions of rationals.

See the article New results about causal diamonds from the TGD view point of view, the shorter article Is Negentropy Maximization Principle needed as an independent principle?, or the chapter with the same title.

For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.