[extropy-chat] triangles

[Marc Geddes]

On 10/26/05, scerir <scerir at libero.it> wrote:
>
> 'On Math, Matter and Mind'
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510188
> Authors: Piet Hut. Mark Alford, Max Tegmark
> 'We discuss the nature of reality in the ontological context of Penrose's
> math-matter-mind triangle. The triangle suggests the circularity of the
> widespread view that math arises from the mind, the mind arises out of
> matter, and that matter can be explained in terms of math. Non-physicists
> should be wary of any claim that modern physics leads us to any particular
> resolution of this circularity, since even the sample of three theoretical
> physicists writing this paper hold three divergent views. Some physicists
> believe that current physics has already found the basic framework for a
> complete description of reality, and only has to fill in the details.
> Others
> suspect that no single framework, from physics or other sources, will ever
> capture reality. Yet others guess that reality might be approached
> arbitrarily closely by some form of future physics, but probably based on
> completely different frameworks. We will designate these three approaches
> as
> the fundamentalist, secular and mystic views of the world, as seen by
> practicing physicists. We present and contrast each of these views, which
> arguably form broad categories capturing most if not all interpretations
> of
> physics. We argue that this diversity in the physics community is more
> useful than an ontological monoculture, since it motivates physicists to
> tackle unsolved problems with a wide variety of approaches.'
>
> -----------------
>
> I've got the vague impression that the paper
> above has to do with the triangle, the circularity,
> the entanglement of entanglements discussed by the
> two papers below ....
>
> -Günther Krenn, -Anton Zeilinger,
> 'Entangled Entanglement'
> http://www.ati.ac.at/~summweb/ifm/publications/entent/entent.html
> in: Phys.Rev.A 54 1793-1797 (1996).
> 'In entangled systems values cannot be assigned to all quantum
> mechanical observables of individual members of the system independent
> of the measurement context of the whole system. While various cases
> are known where properties like spin, momentum, energyetc. can be
> entangled, entanglement itself is usually considered to bean objective
> property of the system. We show that situations can arise where this
> is no longer the case and where therefore entanglement itself
> becomes an entangled property.'
>
> -P.K. Aravind,
> 'Borromean entanglement of the GHZ state',
> http://users.wpi.edu/~paravind/borrom.pdf
> in 'Quantum Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance:
> Essays for Abner Shimony', eds. R. S. Cohen, M. Horne and
> J. Stachel, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1997, pp. 53-59.
>
> ---------------------
>
> .... not to mention here these two links,
> one about some planar triangles http://www.planarity.net/
> the other about some fuzzy Planckian triangulations,
> -R. Loll, -J. Ambjorn, -J. Jurkiewicz
> 'The Universe from Scratch'
> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0509010
> 'A fascinating and deep question about nature is what one would see if one
> could probe space and time at smaller and smaller distances. Already the
> 19th-century founders of modern geometry contemplated the possibility that
> a
> piece of empty space that looks completely smooth and structureless to the
> naked eye might have an intricate microstructure at a much smaller scale.
> Our vastly increased understanding of the physical world acquired during
> the
> 20th century has made this a certainty. The laws of quantum theory tell us
> that looking at spacetime at ever smaller scales requires ever larger
> energies, and, according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, this
> will alter spacetime itself: it will acquire structure in the form of
> "curvature". What we still lack is a definitive Theory of Quantum Gravity
> to
> give us a detailed and quantitative description of the highly curved and
> quantum-fluctuating geometry of spacetime at this so-called Planck scale.
> -
> This article outlines a particular approach to constructing such a theory,
> that of Causal Dynamical Triangulations, and its achievements so far in
> deriving from first principles why spacetime is what it is, from the
> tiniest
> realms of the quantum to the large-scale structure of the universe.'
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>


Good stuff. These guys are on the right track, but they don't see the answer
yet I think :D
 I think the solution to the math/matter/mind puzzle is that reality has
*three* time dimensions, each time dimension being an *emergent* property of
a complex system. The time dimensions are equivalent to conscioius
experience (qualia).
 Singularity here I come. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
:D

--

Please vist my website:
http://www.riemannai.org

Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy

---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,
For, put them side by side,
The one the other will include
With ease, and you beside.

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051026/9c9a4511/attachment.html>