Wednesday, December 22, 2010

TGD Dialogs

TGD Dialogs

Ulla, let us begin with some impressions of the TGD article and consciousness as I was reading it.

I typed these things that came to mind, the first I will add to my last post as it refers to some general concepts of constructable space ideas.

point to line triangles

dark rays from everything Buddhist

quasicity and TGD

metaphysics of zero point energy and Rowlands

hierarchy of Plancks [There are useful and debatable spaces of infinite regress.]

kernel reductionism and periodic table [that is by Pauling's table, the peach pit as a materialist center or self- yet the chemistry acts on the surface outer subshells.]

absolute preternatural dualism theories

quantum non-determinism? on what scale, absolute singularity.

M theory reductionism, a continuous view by waves but
the initial state is not needed perhaps in Rowlands

* * *

I then quoted passages from:
2.2 Basic philosophical problems of quantum mind theories
3.1 New space-time concept too long to re-post here I imagine from that
most excellent contribution to this article on consciousness:

and we may discuss the other authors you mentioned also.

* * *

• What conscious information is? Can one give it a mathematical measure? Can one measure
physically the amount of conscious information? Unfortunately the recent day physics can only
provide measure for dis-information as Shannon entropy and the best that subsystem can achieve
is no information at all if this picture is accepted.

* Shannon's is a most refreshing and valuable theory. Basically, it says that information and meaning are conjugate (the more of one the less of the other) and in a sense as you (and the Buddhists assert) intention is important, consciousness has the deep idea that is contains meaning and not just raw objective information.

* * *

• What is the quantum correlate for the notion of self? The quantum notion of self should be a
generalization of the notion of observer which in quantum measurement theory still remains a
structureless outsider.

* Indeed, but let us put it this way. In relativity where you are, the reference frame, determines or influences what you observe, on the macro scale. In quantum theory that which you observe is changed or influenced by observing it on the micro level. Our minds seem to be in a scale in between, consciousness as observer is changed by its own frame of reference and by the act of observing itself.

* * *
3.1 New space-time concept
The physical motivation for TGD was what I have christened the energy problem of General Relativity.
The notion of energy is ill-defined because the basic symmetries of empty space-time are lost in the
presence of gravity. The way out is based on assumption that space-times are imbeddable as 4-surfaces
to certain 8-dimensional space by replacing the points of 4-D empty Minkowski space with 4-D very small
internal space. This space -call it S- is unique from the requirement that the theory has the symmetries
of standard model: S = CP2, where CP2 is complex projective space with 4 real dimensions [42], is the
unique choice.

*This is essentially correct and certainly seems a complete theory for certain continuous ideas and groups. But it needs further generalization I imagine- for the issue, from an informational view, is to replace binary bases inside of binary bases- this we can imagine the 8 (normal mathematical foundational properties notwithstanding) embedded in 16, 64 and so on. This is the Quasic space of which we all seem to skirt around and sense or describe. I am not sure gravity comes into as you suspect but something should explain it or why it does not behave the way the M theorists suggest. In any case my quasic space is not described by ideas of negative or even zero point levels, more of a positive space- while the ideas of complex numbers (even the applications to quaternions and octonions) may apply they do not tell us everything about how to imagine and perceive such spaces. If the structure of quasic space does describe what we are trying to by quantum terminology and ideas- then it seems to me treating consciousness as a dynamical flatland. But are we not looking for a topological explanation, even in the vacuum, for consciousness? To me it is certainly deeper than the DNA, or molecules, or nerves but a property of the nothingness. Your insight into the importance of chirality is right on as a dynamic mechanism- one which Rowlands begins to see as useful. But so many of your concerns and insights are right on- Certainly, for example, the quasic space touches on the ideas of projective space which has its uses, especially where the calculus has places of stability in magic squares. Another example is the use of recursive or iterative ideas as if fractal, complex space or not, quasics is a general space in spaces of the widest structures and description.

* * *

"All things can come from all things- but if that is the case then a flame could emit dark light."

* * *

Let us recall that there are ways to define energy as hv and mc^2 and the maximum diameter of an evolving continuum!

* * *

I add, interestingly Pitkanen's last post with a link to this anomaly (I do get the good reason to explore such anomalies but other than long standing ones science seems to shy away from such original explorations.) Again I agree that the issue is the geometry as with such toplogical factors of 4 fold pure space as a possible explanation and a new way to see the physics (yet I have not time today to read the other links to Pitkanen's theories on this post.

I am amazed this is how things are done, and the detail of it in the collider and the approximations to get around. Certainly it could lead to theories based on first principles- not to say the experiment and apparatus is not a great human achievement- I wish the superconducting collider had been built and we may be talking about different things now (I lobbied for it in Carolina).

Anyway, this is most likely part of the structure of the recording mechanism of the events but I found another coincidence (not taken as if some sort of real numerology) in the article itself:

"The TPC covered the angular range from 20 to 160 in and extended from 30 cm
to 122 cm in R. It provided up to 16 space points for pattern recognition and ionization
information extracted from 192 wires. The momentum threshold for charged particles
entering the TPC was approximately 100 MeV/c."

Here again I see 192 (hey we need a sense of humor, even Einstein was a master punner) on the other hand could the configuration of an instrument presuppose the objective observation? Certainly it does not generate the anomaly.

* * *

No comments:

Post a Comment