On Friday, March 30, 2018 at 3:36:19 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Mar 2018, at 23:55, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 11:06:51 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 00:57, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 11:01:27 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 25 Mar 2018, at 17:34, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 5:01:59 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, and if someone argue that consciousness is not maintained whatever >>>> the substitution level is, it is up to them to explain what in the >>>> brain+local-evirnoment is not Turing emulable. I see only the “wave packet >>>> reduction”, but I don’t see any evidence for that reduction, and it would >>>> make Quantum mechanics inconsistent (I think) and not usable in cosmology, >>>> nor in quantum information science. To believe that the brain is not a >>>> “natural” machine is a bit like believing in some magic. Why not, but >>>> where >>>> are the evidences? >>>> >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>> >>> There are a couple of things running around here. One involves brains >>> and minds and the other wave function reduction. >>> >>> The issue of up loading brains or mapping them come into the problem >>> with the NP-complete problem of partitioning graphs. I like to think of >>> this according to tensor spaces of states, such as with MERA (multi-scale >>> entanglement renormalization ansatz) tensor networks. The AdS_3 example >>> with H^2 spatial surface is seen in the diagram below. >>> >>> >>> <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KTQRkq19A5k/Wre62NN61yI/AAAAAAAADTI/tYG0j0LYGBsd1SKZ38rnFaAFxj5PaOhrwCLcBGAs/s1600/MERA-AdS%2Btensor%2Bnetwork.jpg> >>> >>> This network has the highest complexity for the pentagonal tessellation >>> for these are honeycombs of the groups H3, H4, H5 corresponding to the >>> pentagon, dodecahedron, and the 4-dim icosadedron or 120/600 cells. These >>> groups will tessellate a 2, 3 and 4 dimensional spatial hyperbolic surface >>> embedded in AdS_3, AdS_4 and AdS_5. These define half the weights of the E8 >>> groups with the Zamolodchikov eigenvalues or masses. 5-fold structures have >>> connections to the golden mean, and the Zamolodchikov quaternions are >>> representations of the golden mean quaternions. A quantum error correction >>> code (QECC) defines a projector onto each of these partitioned elements, >>> but (without going into some deep mathematics) this is not computable in a >>> root system because there is no Galois field extension, which gives that >>> the QECC is not NP-complete. >>> >>> This of course is work I am doing with respect to the problem of >>> unitarity in quantum black holes and holography. It may have some >>> connection with more ordinary quantum mechanics and measurement. The action >>> of a measurement is a process whereby a set of quantum states code some >>> other set of quantum states, where usually the number of the measuring >>> states is far larger than the measured states. The quantum measurement >>> problem may have some connection to the above, and further it has some >>> qualitative similarity to self-reference. This may then mean the >>> proposition P = NP or P =/= NP is not provable, but where maybe specific >>> examples of NP/NP-complete algorithms as not-P can be proven. >>> >>> This further might connect with the whole idea of up-loading minds into >>> computers. Brains and their states are not just localized states but >>> networks, and it could well be that this is not tractable. I paste in below >>> a review paper on graph partitioning. This is just one possible theoretical >>> obstruction, and if you plan on actually "bending metal" on this the >>> problems will doubtless multiply like bunnies in spring. >>> >>> As a general rule once these threads gets past 100 I tend not to post >>> any more. It becomes to annoying to find my way around them. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> That is interesting, and might even help later to recover notions like >>> space, but to keep the distinction between the communicable and the non >>> communicable part of the machines modes, which is needed for the mind-body >>> problème, we have to extracted such structure in some special way, using >>> the mathematics of self-reference. I am unfortunately not that far! It >>> might take some generations of mathematicians. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >> >> The non-communicating regions can be in a quantum entanglement. >> >> >> >> The non-communicating/proving/Justifiable-believing regions is >> axiomatised by G*. The quantum entanglement appears (well their shadows at >> least) in the material mode of the true self-references (see my papers for >> the mathematical precision). >> >> I do not assume a physical reality. I assume only very elementary >> arithmetic, or very elementary combinators theory, or anything Turing >> equivalent. >> >> But there is indeed a relation between arithmetical incompleteness and >> the quantum, as it is incompleteness making the logic of []p >> distinguishable from []p & p and []p & ~[]f and others, and they give the >> arithmetical quantum logic when p is restricted to the semi-computable >> (sigma_1) propositions. >> This is not well known, if not well hidden, despite verified by many. We >> are in the materialist Aristotelian dogmatic era, where people prefer >> comfortable lies instead of ignorance and research. >> >> Bruno >> > > I don't think entanglement has anything to do with self-reference in a > direct way. It is with measurement of decoherence this might emerge. A > measurement is a process where the superposition or entanglement phase is > transferred to a reservoir of states which culminate in the needle state. > > > From the first person points of view. A good thing, as this illustrated > how the first person view become a plural (but still phenomenological) > view, as dictated by mechanism. > > > > In effect this leads to the einselection of stable classical states, > > > Indeed. > > > > which can occur without an actual conscious observer. > > > I can agree, but you need the first person to make it a stable reality we > can talk about. > > > > The incompleteness is seen in the incompatibility of classical and quantum > physics. > > > > ? > > The quantum is a consequence of incompleteness, because to have a measure, > we have to add the existence of the continuations explicit. This is > obtained by passing from the logic of []p to the logic of []p & <>t. P has > to be true in all extensions (to get the measure one), but we have to add > the non provable “<>t” to assure that there is at least one extension, > which the machine can’t prove. > > Nagel and Newman used the Euclid fifth axiom as a case of Godel's theorem and how this results in Euclidean geometry, consistent but not complete, and a plethora of nonEuclidean geometries that are not consistent with each other but that form a complete system. The dichotomy between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics has struck me as remarkably similar. Measurement or decoherence thought of as a sort of self-referential process. It is incompleteness in this sense that leads to classical mechanics, or the einselection of states, and is a motivating problem behind the large and growing number of quantum interpretations.
> > > I am not sure how this would fit into the NP-completeness of a quantum > error correction codes in quantum gravitation. > > > Me neither. > > > > Black holes have some similarities with the problem of so called wave > function collapse. Hawking radiation has decoherent structure and has been > seen as a case of where a closed system can lead to collapse or > decoherence. The standard idea is decoherence occurs because there is an > infinite number of vacuum states an excited state can spontaneously emit > into. This is more of an open system model. So this is a bit of a > conundrum. Invoking NP-completeness is a way of arguing for an open world > or system. Where this fits into a further putative Godel perspective is not > clear to me. > > > > Well, there is no choice than to see how the arithmetical look to > arithmetical being, if we assume mechanism. Non-mechanism might be true, > but it comes back dismiss consciousness and eliminating person, or adding > some magic in the mind to identify some finite volume with some mind > creating machine. I do not assume a physical reality, I show how the > perception of such emerges from number when they introspect themselves, and > although the physics obtained is very modest, it fits with the observable > *and* with consciousness, contrary to physicalism. > > Bruno > I am not sure what is being considered here as "non-mechanism," though that might be invoked in some platonic or idealistic form of mathematical objectivity. These types of ideas, which in some ways get into metaphysics, are a bit beyond the domain of activity I am into. LC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
