tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post706039118600842941..comments2024-01-22T11:26:37.599-08:00Comments on TGD diary: Empirical support for TGD based model of long term memoriesMatti Pitkänenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-43200467226854861062007-06-28T08:47:00.000-07:002007-06-28T08:47:00.000-07:00The physical content of the hierarchy of Planck co...The physical content of the hierarchy of Planck constant realized as a book like structure of the generalized imbedding space is hierarchy of quantum critical systems. <BR/><BR/>You start with water/ice/vapor and go to tri-critical point where these phases coincide. You are at criticality. Generalize the critical point to critical manifold. Inside this critical manifold you find a further critical manifold inside which you find .... The higher the criticality the higher the evolutionary level which reflects among other things as time scale of memories and planned action. <BR/><BR/>If you believe in this hierarchy of criticalities you must conclude that any civilization by definition lives at the edge. I am afraid that our western civilization is rapidly rolling down to lower levels of criticality.Matti Pitkänenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-70749677855151712792007-06-27T04:34:00.000-07:002007-06-27T04:34:00.000-07:00Now it's getting clearer.Trying to understand you,...Now it's getting clearer.<BR/><BR/>Trying to understand you, your first two paragraphs now seems to make sense to me. <BR/><BR/>Paragraph 3 and 4 I think I also more or less have a picture of your view, which I can understand from my point of view as well.<BR/><BR/>Your p-adic ideas intrigues me, even though it seems your way of arriving at it, is completely different what be compliant with my method. Perhaps I will come back to you on this another time. My interest is that even though I do not start out from any mathematical guidance principles, there appears natural sequences in the evolutionary model. In the continuum approximation these problem completely goes away, but the observation I've done is that interesting things does happen when the contiuum approximation is invalid. Here I have feared that the formalism may end up beeing something more nasty. I am currently working on many things but in time I will do a closeup on the properties implied by the evolutionary series. I honestly have no idea if it is related to your ideas or not, but the possibility was obvious. If so, it would be amazing that you have found it in guided by a different method. We'll see. I don't know enough about your stuff, or haven't had enough progress on my thinking yet to discuss this in detail just yet.<BR/><BR/>"Hierarchy of Planck constants leads to a further generalization: copies of 8-D imbedding spaces are glued together to form a book like structure."<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I understand this, but is it some kind of expansion in terms of orders of complexity of classical models? If so, is there anything driving the rate this expansion? Or is this expansion more like a possible expansion to be done by us? (ie the inventor, You in this case :) or is it done dynamically in nature?)<BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-8239522578529792892007-06-27T03:36:00.000-07:002007-06-27T03:36:00.000-07:00Subjective time is by no means restricted to human...Subjective time is by no means restricted to humans or living systems. Even cognition and intentionality appears at elementary particle level if one accepts their p-adic description and would manifest directly in the properties of mass spectrum of elementary particles. Without exaggerating one can say that this is quite dramatic (and highly successful!) prediction. <BR/><BR/>Space-time geometry corresponds to the existence in the sense of classical physics. Since already physical states correspond to super-positions of nearly identical space-time surfaces, also geometric time can be measured only with a finite accuracy. <BR/><BR/>p-Adic length scales define a hierarchy of resolutions and space-time sheets with size scale characterized by prime p define physics given meter sticks and chronons. Basic length scale unit is CP_2 size: in fact, one can end up with TGD by just requiring that there is unique purely geometric length scale unit in the theory. String models and GRT lack this kind of unit.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Finite measurement resolution and associated effective discretization of space-time lead to a new quantum measurement theory for which von Neuman developed the basic mathematical tools long ago but did from quite different physical motivations. <BR/><BR/>The essential point is that I believe on classical geometry: there is no discretization at Planck scale or something like that in TGD Universe. Structures analogous to non-commutative geometries assigned usually with Planck length emerge as a result of finite resolution of quantum measurement and cognition. <BR/><BR/>The classical geometry can be however generalized infinite-D geometry of world of classical worlds, which I believe to be essentially unique from the mere existence requirement (there are very strong reasons to believe so) and p-adic variants of space-time geometry. Hierarchy of Planck constants leads to a further generalization: copies of 8-D imbedding spaces are glued together to form a book like structure.Matti Pitkänenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-48648979486331160432007-06-27T01:16:00.000-07:002007-06-27T01:16:00.000-07:00""Instant" with respect to subjective time, not ge...""Instant" with respect to subjective time, not geometric."<BR/><BR/>Another detail. In my thinking subjective time doesn't just apply to psychology, there is a subjective time even for a particle in the way I picture things. This is also the basis for unification of particles, complex molecules, replicating molecules, simples cellular mechanics, and ultimately animals with brains. What I picture is an abstract "scaling" across several the levels of complexity.<BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-1547147068322379382007-06-27T01:11:00.000-07:002007-06-27T01:11:00.000-07:00"Yes, instant update is quite near. "Instant" with..."Yes, instant update is quite near. "Instant" with respect to subjective time, not geometric."<BR/><BR/>Translating that into my view that makes sense!<BR/><BR/>Only that in my view, the "with respect to time" is an identity. The perceived changes is the qualifying support for time itself. One without the other is hard to imagine in my world, so in my thinking it's two different descriptions of the same thing.<BR/><BR/>A differential of time, corresponds to a differential of change (as a probabilistic measure). <BR/><BR/>If I think we are closing up on each other, I think that the geometric time is by construction (in my view) not fundamentally observer invariant, because it's basically a relative expectation.<BR/><BR/>But if I understand you right, I suspec that your embedding in the hihger dimensions has effectively solved this assuming there is nothing more to reality (to be seen in the future) than the standard model? But those technical things I could not tell because I certainly don't know your theory well enough. This is just a hunch based on my brief looking into some papers and this discussion.<BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-34777227718335138782007-06-27T00:57:00.000-07:002007-06-27T00:57:00.000-07:00"there is quantum superposition of 4-surfaces (spa..."there is quantum superposition of 4-surfaces (space-times) so that the idea about single space-time is idealization."<BR/><BR/>This is completely in line with my view too, even though the "line of reasoning" to arrive at this is different because we have different starting points and methods. But I do not see this as a contradiction. What may be an axiom to you is a theorem for me, and vice versa. I think sometimes formalism can be confusing, so I try not to focus too hard on the formalism itself, at least not at the early stage where my prefered formalism isn't yet matured. <BR/><BR/>I think the results of our thinking seem to have a little more in common like I originally smelled, even though we speak different languages. <BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-32341675729947468192007-06-27T00:18:00.000-07:002007-06-27T00:18:00.000-07:00"But it sounds like the closest thing that in your..."But it sounds like the closest thing that in your framwork is a instant update of the entire geometry, is what I would think of as an update of the "prior" in response to new data."<BR/><BR/>I need to clarify that I use the word prior here in a more general setting than a simple actual prior probability distribution. There are two (I think equivalent) approaches here where one either can evolve a prior during constraints, or you can define a far more complex "prior model" where the constraints are builtin. The latter will be more complex, but the dynamical equations will be simpler since there are no constraints to be added separately.<BR/><BR/>So I picture that the generalised _prior model_ is update upon new observations. In the continuum limit, this is a smooth and effectively differentiable evolution. In the case of either very massive information quanta, or low confidence in past relative current new data it will not be continous, it will be more of "jumps". <BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-13049634456959290872007-06-27T00:04:00.000-07:002007-06-27T00:04:00.000-07:00Yes, instant update is quite near. "Instant" with ...Yes, instant update is quite near. "Instant" with respect to subjective time, not geometric. <BR/><BR/>To make things a little bit more complicated;-) one has however to notice that there is quantum superposition of 4-surfaces (space-times) so that the idea about single space-time is idealization.<BR/><BR/>The quantum jump replaces deterministic quantum evolution with a new one and non-determinism is outside space-time. This is the basic point. In standard framework one should assume that Schrodinger equation ceases to hold true for a moment and this kind of assumption is definitely nonsense. <BR/><BR/>Bohr took the easy route and argued that one simply must give up the idea of objective existence (existence as a quantum state) and take quantum mechanics as mere calculational rules. Einstein refused to accept non-determinism and was also wrong. The new view resolves Einstein-Bohr debate and shows that both were both right and wrong in their own manners.Matti Pitkänenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-69473826975057273762007-06-26T22:57:00.000-07:002007-06-26T22:57:00.000-07:00"However, if one requires that the notion of geome..."However, if one requires that the notion of geometric time of general relativity makes sense, that it is equivalent with experienced time, and accepts quantum jump, one ends up with paradox unless one modifies the ontology by assuming that quantum states are entire histories from moment of big bang to infinitely distant future"<BR/><BR/>I think I am slowly converging into an understanding of some your questions, but I am no clear yet. <BR/><BR/>But it sounds like the closest thing that in your framwork is a instant update of the entire geometry, is what I would think of as an update of the "prior" in response to new data.<BR/><BR/>If I would take on the view that any information by necessity was to take on certain geometric strucutres, it doesn't seem unreasonable that similar things may happen there too. If the geometry is given an interpretation of existence independent of observation it seems to be a problem.<BR/><BR/>Is that close?<BR/><BR/>Then in my view, there seems to be no paradox though, because I never attach any ontological existence to my the history.<BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-81440562084834283002007-06-26T21:45:00.000-07:002007-06-26T21:45:00.000-07:00"Why past seems to be rather inert with respect to..."Why past seems to be rather inert with respect to intentional action or is this just belief: could I reconstruct my past so that it would be happier?"<BR/><BR/>This question is probably not made often by neuro-scientist who has not much time to ponder about mystery of time. The view about time forced by the mathematical framework of TGD makes this question very natural.<BR/><BR/>This question does not make sense if one accepts the identification of experienced time and geometric time of physicist. <BR/><BR/>However, if one requires that the notion of geometric time of general relativity makes sense, that it is equivalent with experienced time, and accepts quantum jump, one ends up with paradox unless one modifies the ontology by assuming that quantum states are entire histories from moment of big bang to infinitely distant future. With this paradox Einstein was fighting for his whole life after QM.<BR/><BR/>This new view about time makes us 4-D beings in geometric sense able to affect our geometric past (but not subjective!). It brings in new view about memory since in principle there is no need to store memories.<BR/><BR/>The confidence of memories of geometric past could be guaranteed by building several copies of memories and this would not require to fill the entire life cycle with these copies. <BR/><BR/>What seems obvious is that intentional action on geometric past is rather limited: otherwise the decision in geometric past could instantaneously change my life in a revolutionary manner. On the other hand, miracle healings involving visible changes are reported continually. For instance, Candace Pert, almost a nobelist in biochemistry, reported this kind of healing in her book.Matti Pitkänenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-42932022667752423372007-06-26T14:10:00.000-07:002007-06-26T14:10:00.000-07:00"Why past seems to be rather inert with respect to..."Why past seems to be rather inert with respect to intentional action or is this just belief: could I reconstruct my past so that it would be happier?"<BR/><BR/>I think your questions are more psychological than mine. I assume this isn't mean to be a mathematical question. So if you mean what I think you mean, in my thinking the answer to that may be that the we have a certain confidence in the past, which can interpreted as a kind of inertia to new input. New input does change the knowledge of the past, but only to limits allowed by the relative confidence of past vs new input. If our memory is large, the past has a massive "confidence intertia" relative to new information. Also the remodelling of memeory I think has a kind of generalised inertia, because change of remodelling is resisted by intertia of the past.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure if it's related, they seem to be. Yet our methods differ. If so, that's the fascinating part. <BR/><BR/>In my view, this can ultimately be described in a mathematical formalism involving evolutionary subjective logic. Exactly how this works chemically in a human brain is outside my question set. I'm trying to understand what the information abstracted view could be like.<BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-85211793924165247062007-06-26T13:55:00.000-07:002007-06-26T13:55:00.000-07:00"Still a short comment. The basic aspect of data a..."Still a short comment. The basic aspect of data and information is its aboutness. Also consciousness is about something. Matter as described by physics is not about: it just is! This suggests that physics is not reducible to information theory."<BR/><BR/>I have no choice but to disagree here, but like you said, that's what makes it interesting.<BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-35120699762518546342007-06-26T13:48:00.000-07:002007-06-26T13:48:00.000-07:00"Our language are so different that cannot give an..."Our language are so different that cannot give any precise answers since I am not at all sure whether I have even understood your questions! Therefore I sharpen my own views so that you can deduce the answer."<BR/><BR/>Yes, I have not formulated my questions in mathematics, because at least from this specific point of view here, they are currently outside the realm of mathematics. But my ambition is that once the mystery is solved, there will be a mathematical formalism that approximates this to sufficient accuracy. But I've got some journey until I'm there, in particular since I don't have much time to spend on this. I take it very seriously, but it's still a "hobby" as far as how much time I have to dispose on it. <BR/><BR/>But your sharpenings did help to answer the questions. I think it's sufficiently clear now. My intention was as much in your methods as it was in your results so to speak. Your mutual interest in the sometimes "controversial" consciousness interests me.<BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-72393330444375922152007-06-26T00:08:00.000-07:002007-06-26T00:08:00.000-07:00Still a short comment. The basic aspect of data an...Still a short comment. The basic aspect of data and information is its aboutness. Also consciousness is about something. Matter as described by physics is not about: it just is! This suggests that physics is not reducible to information theory.Matti Pitkänenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-83771819931206807032007-06-26T00:06:00.000-07:002007-06-26T00:06:00.000-07:00"Does the below reflections in any sense satisfy s..."Does the below reflections in any sense satisfy some part of your question?"<BR/><BR/>Our language are so different that cannot give any precise answers since I am not at all sure whether I have even understood your questions! Therefore I sharpen my own views so that you can deduce the answer.<BR/><BR/>My question is basically about detailed understanding of physchological arrow of time. Also about why contents of sensory input are localized around very short time interval whereas memories about long time interval. Why past seems to be rather inert with respect to intentional action or is this just belief: could I reconstruct my past so that it would be happier? <BR/><BR/>I am not quite sure what you mean with predictive updates. In any case, my basic point is that in new view about time there is no absolute need to update memories again and again: memories are in the geometric past where the event creating them happened and communication with geometric past makes possible memory recall. The concrete implication is that you might be able to remember practically without any brain: only the communication to geometric past would be needed.<BR/><BR/>I would also emphasize that quantum jump is really something very non-trivial: entire four-dimensional reality is re-created: also the geometric past. <BR/><BR/>I would not try to reduce everything to data or information. One can define information measures as one tell how intense the color red is but it might impossible to define it just as it is impossible to characterize the sensation of color using language: one must simply experience it. The reason is of course that information characterizes contents of conscious experience rather than physical state.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>In TGD based ontology there are three levels: quantum states, quantum jumps to which conscious existence can be assigned, and space-time level: classical physics as space-time geometry. I think that all these levels of ontology are necessary for a real understanding, the attempts to reduce everything to some kind of monism lead to paradoxes.Matti Pitkänenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-81438071196311977052007-06-25T02:02:00.000-07:002007-06-25T02:02:00.000-07:00"why the contents of sensory experience comes from..."why the contents of sensory experience comes from a short interval of geometric time and why this interval shifts to geometric future quantum jump by quantum jump. In this picture memories represent breaking of the naive "reality as time=constant snapshot of space-time" in the scale of lifetime."<BR/><BR/>Does the below reflections in any sense satisfy some part of your question?<BR/><BR/>I agree that memory beeing time-snapshot of reality is seemingly a too simplistic idea. I more think of memory as a evolving compactification of history, where the quantum jumps as you say (which I assume would correspond to new "interaction events" or simply "data"??) in my view would provide the basis for "change", which by my means of relations in the datastream can be used to define time as a way to parametrize the changes we experience, relative to subchanges in a clock device.<BR/><BR/>So I picture a local time differential as a parametrization of the expected direction of change. And the expectation is some kind of subjective bayesian-like expectation. During chaotic conditions, the expectations are rarely met, and thus the notion of time becomes almost useless. And this is continously updated, excess data must also be discarded unless the memory grows. This is kind of the part of the information geometric and ME dynamics I like.<BR/><BR/>So I ultimately think the physical laws can be deduced to "predictive updates". The idea is that the logic of a "particle responding to a field" is to be unified with the general case of a information device responding to new information. In this respect we see an immediate analogy with a particle and the human brain, except of course the human brain are a little bit ahead in the evolutionary level :) But I think there exist a unifying evolutionary mechanism that unifies us.<BR/><BR/>I am also curious if you make sense of this at all, or if this comes out at philosophical mumblings? Something which I would completely understand.<BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-23434065122116208782007-06-25T01:32:00.000-07:002007-06-25T01:32:00.000-07:00Matti, thanks for taking your time to respond, I a...Matti, thanks for taking your time to respond, I appreciate it. I think it is interesting to hear your reasoning, because different methods may reveal interesting angles of the subject. <BR/> <BR/>"The success of Poincare invariance of special relativity and of general coordinate invariance of General Relativity make it very difficult to consider any other alternatives than the mathematician's geometric time for the time of physics."<BR/><BR/>I have no doubt it's difficult, but I have an intuitive vision of how to do it, but I am currently looking for the formalism. Like you I have been intrigued by the way the human brain works, because after all physical theories are a product of our brains. We often talk about how we lack experimental data in some domains, but there are also the domains of high complexity in nature (human brain for example) where we certainly do not lack data, why look where we can't see, when there is alot of things we do see but don't understand? The potential is enough to keep me explore it in despite of how difficult it is.<BR/><BR/>"I believe that quantum theory is source of fuzziness"<BR/><BR/>My starting point and guiding principle is that <BR/>everything should be infered and defined in terms of real data. This includes the model structure itself. Every new question asked, must have come from a relation to existing information:<BR/><BR/>For example, I have never observed a "3 dimensional space" in nature, or a probability space for that matter. I am only exposed to a stream of data or information, and my view is formed by organizing and interpreting this data stream in a way that is beneficial for my existence. Thus I see that that this "3 dimensional space" is infered from the datastream as a way to compactify data in order of significance (least significan data is truncated and possible "radiated" off in some way), and thus vulnerable to change if unexpected data comes. But since it seems impossible due to memeory constraints, to have an full resolution mirror image of the universe inside my head that is eqvuivalent to the history of data I've been exposed to, some data reduction must be done. Thus a "fuzzy 3d space" is classically reduced to a idealized mathematical 3d space, at a minimum loss but at a huge gain in storage effiency. <BR/><BR/>I think the stability of systems may ultimately be explains in similar terms, and it's ultimately due to information quanta. But the information quanta is system dependent.<BR/><BR/>This clearly relates to the measurement process, which I take to be on of the more fundamental things. Since our perception of the environment, is driven by interactions and measurements. And thing the finiteness of measurement and representation (memory limits) is the fundamental cause for the fuzz.<BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-48709276443834925472007-06-23T20:11:00.000-07:002007-06-23T20:11:00.000-07:00The success of Poincare invariance of special rela...The success of Poincare invariance of special relativity and of general coordinate invariance of General Relativity make it very difficult to consider any other alternatives than the mathematician's geometric time for the time of physics.<BR/><BR/>The experienced time is of course different (irreversibility, no subjective future). To me the challenge is to understand why these two times are approximately related: why the contents of sensory experience comes from a short interval of geometric time and why this interval shifts to geometric future quantum jump by quantum jump. In this picture memories represent breaking of the naive "reality as time=constant snapshot of space-time" in the scale of lifetime.<BR/><BR/><BR/>In TGD framework 3-D light-like partonic space-time sheet is the fundamental object instead of point-like particle. One can say that 3-space and particle are unified: by "gluing" a small 3-space to larger one you get particle in space.<BR/><BR/>Fuzzy structures are there but I believe that quantum theory is source of fuzziness rather than fuzzines source of dynamical geometry. In quantum theory neither the position nor the shape of the partonic 2-surface are completely fixed since quantum fluctuations are present. One can assign to partonic 3-surface only the average values of temporal and spatial position. This brings in fuzziness via finite measurement resolution and quantum groups, quantum spinors, and quantum logic are manner to represent this fuzziness.Matti Pitkänenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-27878332920535060782007-06-23T08:55:00.000-07:002007-06-23T08:55:00.000-07:00Thanks for your comment.I am not overly fond of th...Thanks for your comment.<BR/><BR/>I am not overly fond of the "dust cloud" idea either, but I don't think that's the most important focus.<BR/><BR/>Howoto get the minkowski signature I have some clear visions on that but the formalism is to come. The key I see is howto treat time, and that's connected to the ME principle. <BR/><BR/>IMO the idea is that time is simply a choice of parametrisation in a stochastic evolution. The actual parametrisation is carried out by a reference system (clock). But the clock is not given, the clock has to be identified first, meaning that there is a chaotic domain where the notion of time is cloudy, and in the extreme even nonexistent.<BR/><BR/>The local information, defines a distribution of probable futures, determined by the supposed ME principle, which is supposedly an extension to bayes rule. But I am not quite satisfied with the current formulation of the ME principle, but I have ideas on how to improve it. This very construction will guarantee a statistical nature with a kind of local upper bound of information progagation, like in SR. But this is not definite, it's only valid to a certain confidence in a statistical way. I don't think it's fundamental as such. Thus the trick would be to not at first consider time as a dimension. <BR/><BR/>This first seems to be hard to merge with GR, but the unification is that ultimaltely space isn't a "hard physical" dimension either... it's all fuzzy structures, and structures emerge as we learn, or as a particle "equilibrates" with the environment.<BR/><BR/>I was wonder wether your notion of quantum jumps could link to this. I migth consider if information quanta, like if that was the starting point, and then try to work all the other stuff out in reverse order - statistically using bayesian like reasoning. I say bayesian like, because it's not a straight bayesian thing, I think of it as a kind of generalisation of it.<BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-61794427481051596222007-06-23T07:38:00.000-07:002007-06-23T07:38:00.000-07:00I cannot comment on ME method.I looked at the pape...I cannot comment on ME method.<BR/><BR/>I looked at the paper in the link you gave. The article introduces dust cloud and probability measure characterizing the probality that particles can be distinguished. Distances between particles are distances between probability distributions and this leads to a metric expressible in terms of these probability distributions. <BR/><BR/>To me the main weak point the assumption of the dust cloud: this kind of cloud is not present for say Schwartschild solution. <BR/><BR/>Problems are also encountered when one tries to get metric with Minkowski signature: if one looks the fundamental Gaussian containing metric in exponent one finds that Minkowski signature forces the Gaussian distribution to be non-non-normalizable and diverge for large values of time coordinate. <BR/><BR/>The author restricts the consideration to 3-D metrics with Euclidian signature to avoid the problem. Author introduced a metric in the space of metric tensors probably in hope of obtaining something analogous to geometrodynamics of Wheeler. It is however difficult to see how 4-metric could emerge in this kind of picture.Matti Pitkänenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-44641759283246311692007-06-23T02:20:00.000-07:002007-06-23T02:20:00.000-07:00I like ot think the main message in that paper is ...I like ot think the main message in that paper is the line of reasoning, not the math, which is fairly basic and elaborate at this point.<BR/><BR/>What I picture this will lead to is a kind of evolution of probability spaces, and thus ideally there is no need to assume any kind of dimensionalities, because the model is really a method, and applying the meothod to real data will yield the model, and the correct dimensionality and so on should be inferred from a kind of evolutionary dataprocessing. This is all extremely intuitive to me, thinking of human consciousness. This was the link I smelled in your work. Now I see you have a different approache, but i still don't rule out interesting commong denomitators.<BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-12114760685697162162007-06-23T02:05:00.000-07:002007-06-23T02:05:00.000-07:00Matti, I am curious to hear your intuitive comment...Matti, I am curious to hear your intuitive comment about the information geometric and ME-inspired approaches.<BR/><BR/>There's a guy who set out to derive GR in terms of these first principles, but have not yet succeded. <BR/><BR/>From what I know, not many people work on this, but his philosophy is probably closests to mine I've found in pulibhsed papers. Although alot of things, in the formalism is currently unclear and I am in favour of deriving the ME principles without using a clear entropy concept, mainly to get rid of the ambigous notion of entropy. At best the entropy represents a class of fcuntions that would equally well be used instead of hte entropy to derive the very same ME dynamics. I think this is better shaved off from the beginning.<BR/><BR/>Look at the ideas begind it at<BR/><BR/>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0301/0301061v1.pdf.<BR/><BR/>I'm just curious about your thinking of the philosophy. <BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-83562983054562489062007-06-20T05:36:00.000-07:002007-06-20T05:36:00.000-07:00We seem to have a lot of common but also differenc...We seem to have a lot of common but also differences and this is what makes the discussion interesting;-). <BR/><BR/>I do not pretend of having very high thoughts about academic environments. Freedom of thought is the absolutely essential element for a flourishing academic community but at least in theoretical physics it has been lost completely during last three decades. <BR/><BR/>For more than decade ago I left university: one might regard this as a childish reaction but certain events induced too deep disgust in me. I have spent some short periods in university after that but have been free researcher (unemployed) for the last five years.Matti Pitkänenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13512912323574611883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-20402223158414984282007-06-20T04:42:00.000-07:002007-06-20T04:42:00.000-07:00> In the recent academic environment where people ...> In the recent academic environment where people concentrate more on career than science <BR/><BR/>Sadly enough it seems this is a builtin problem. There is indeed a conflict between the two positions. This didn't hit me until when during the last year of the university studies. Thus bugged me and I made the choice to keep my favourite things clean from commercial infuences to the extent possible. Maybe you'd think that science is free and above commercial constraints and other annoying stuff, but it seems unfortunately it's not so. This is why I don't want to contribute to it. <BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10614348.post-2587130877030365612007-06-20T04:31:00.000-07:002007-06-20T04:31:00.000-07:00"This is really re-creation of new universe knowin..."This is really re-creation of new universe knowing more about itself and methods can only make these quantum leaps more probable. "<BR/><BR/>If you mean that the universe "grows" into something more capable than before, I agree completely. I don't see this in contradiction to my position. In fact this is why I do not look for a definite static formulation of the ultimate truth. I am only looking for the optimal route to the next level or optimal routing to the truth - the optimal scientific method. By definition an inductive reasoning But I hope that it should be possible to approximate the induction step at some reasonably persistent state, but probably not forever lasting. I think the bounding fact from prevents this from beeing an endless loop, is that all of this is contained in the state of a particular subsystem - a particle, or an observer, or a human for that matter.<BR/><BR/>Subsystems, particles, human consciousness are I think governed by the same inductive ("fractal" in a certain sense) rules, but they are seen at different levels of sophistican and self organisation. <BR/><BR/>It seems at least somewhat similar to your thinking? But I think your "first principles" and methods seem different than mine. <BR/><BR/> /FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com