On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 7:22 PM Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote:
Along the same lines, how then do you interpret imaginary quantities > of evidence? > These correspond to the "case counts" comprising quantum "complex probability amplitudes" which only "exist" as potentials as opposed to actuals. This gets into the whole question/quandary of "quantum ontology". Does something "exist" before it is measured? > ... > They do look at distinctions in this sort of proto-space as giving > rise to time ... but then I think Kauffmann looks at physical space as > emerging from the algebras immanent in multiple > coupled/interpenetrating distinctions, in a way analogous to but more > complex than how time arises... > And Brown doesn't even admit to the "existence" of "time", in the ordinary sense, until a higher order of feedback because the first order feedback doesn't provide itself with a metric -- the first order provides the metric for higher orders. I don't recall his full argument, but he made reference to a book "An Experiment With Time <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Experiment_with_Time>" that he thought was a good start on this way back in the 1930s. So I suppose there is also a notion of "proto-time" as well as "proto-space". My main interest originated in designing a relational computer programming language based on The Laws of Form and Russell's Relation Arithmetic out of which would naturally fall things like dimensioned numbers (units) with dimensional analysis etc. as a more natural approach than types. That's why I hired Tom Etter (the link theory author) as part of HP's "Internet Chapter 2" project circa 1999. That it would have handled "quantum computers" was not my main interest but would, again, fall out "naturally". ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T425c68f0cea319cd-M237e6577a72f640be270343c Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
