Subject: The emergence of spacetime
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:50:37 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Hartmann Römer <hartmann.roemer@physik.uni-freiburg.de>
CC: Filk@physik.uni-freiburg.de, haa@igpp.de, primas@ggaweb.ch,
     kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de
 

Dear Professor Römer,

I am very pleased to see that you mentioned the issue of 3-D space in your "Weak Quantum Theory and the Emergence of Time" [Ref. 1].

I agree with Harald Atmanspacher that "further work will be needed to tell how such an at present abstract approach can become applicable to empirical research problems" [Ref. 2]. I already informed Claus Kiefer about my efforts,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Kiefer.html#GR

Should you or your colleagues are interested in experimental work, please don't hesitate to write me back.

Regards,

Dimi Chakalov
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/download.html

References

[Ref. 1] Hartmann Römer, Weak Quantum Theory and the Emergence of Time, Mind and Matter 2(2), 105-125 (2004),
http://www.mindmatter.de/mmpdf/roemer.pdf

p. 123: "Finally, having discussed time at considerable length, one might wonder about space. We expect that space, as time, arises only after the epistemic split. As opposed to time, it will have its origin in the material component A_matter of the unus mundus. (...) These questions certainly deserve a study of their own."
 

[Ref. 2] Harald Atmanspacher, Editorial, Mind and Matter 2(2), 3-7 (2004),
http://www.mindmatter.de/mmpdf/editorial2_2.pdf

"A generalized complementarity of consciousness and physical systems is the key feature of Hartmann Römer's contribution. He addresses the distinct notions of experienced time and physical time as a consequence of an "epistemic split" that is necessary in order to distinguish the domains of consciousness and physics. In Römer's dual-aspect approach, the common origin of these two domains is inspired by C.G. Jung's concept of an unus mundus, an undivided holistic reality that is empirically inaccessible in itself. Only by its division into parts can empirical access be achieved.
...

"Further work will be needed to tell how such an at present abstract
approach can become applicable to empirical research problems."
 
 

Note: Hartmann Römer has introduced the notion of preobservables [Ref. 1, p. 112]:

"At this point, we should indicate another possible enrichment of the axioms of Atmanspacher et al. (2002), to which we shall return at the end of this study. One could admit a more general kind of observables without an associated spectrum, for which the notion of preobservables might be appropriate. Preobservables could be related to non-categorial states of attention of the observer (cf. Atmanspacher and Fach 2004). Only after establishing a horizon of expectations, e.g., as a result of additional experience, it may become possible to associate a spectrum to them and turn them into ordinary observables."

In the last quoted paper (H. Atmanspacher and W. Fach (2004), Acategoriality as mental instability. Submitted to Journal of Mind and Behavior, pdf file here), Harald Atmanspacher and Wolfgang Fach explain the so-called acategorial states as follows:

"Since there is always a local maximum between two minima of  V , transitions between stable categorial states must pass over instabilities. The behavior of the mental system in the vicinity of instabilities is a topic which -- with historical exceptions such as William James -- was and is notoriously neglected in the relevant literature. Jean Gebser proposed the concept of acategorial states in this context. A state is acategorial if it is located between possible categorial states, i.e. between mental representations."

To cut the long story short, Hartmann Römer's preobservables could be related to acategorial states, which are "located between possible categorial states, i.e. between mental representations", as suggested by Jean Gebser (J. Gebser, The ever-present origin, Athens OH, Ohio Univesity Press, 1986).

Note that these preobservables are brain states. They are UNspeakable and fix the context of all cognitive processes. They are the physical basis of the binding phenomenon. Their temporal presentation is unique, and the underlying physics may lead to canonical quantum gravity: the emergence of spacetime from C.G. Jung's unus mundus.

All this is well-known, the real challenge is to use this theory as a map to show us the treasure of the latent abilities of the human brain. As a bonus, we might discover the right path toward quantum gravity. Tough but doable (hopefully).
 

D. Chakalov
March 6, 2005

 
 

=============

Subject: Global and and local observables
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:11:33 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@surfeu.at>
To: hartmann.roemer@physik.uni-freiburg.de,
     Roemer@physik.uni-freiburg.de
CC: haa@igpp.de, Filk@physik.uni-freiburg.de, jochum@phyv1.physik.uni-freiburg.de, primas@phys.chem.ethz.ch, mischo@igpp.de, rcb@igpp.de, anton.amann@uibk.ac.at, dressler@ggaweb.ch, mershin@rainbow.physics.tamu.edu, sudarshan@physics.utexas.edu, aephraim@physics.utoronto.ca
[snip]
 

Dear Professor Römer,

I'm reading your recent paper [Ref. 1] with great pleasure and satisfaction. Perhaps you may wish to see

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/LHC.html#Holon

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Margon.html

I believe you can identify the global observable (pertaining to the Holon) and the local observables with your brain,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Vecchi.html

You and your colleagues wrote: "It is presumably not easy to prepare and observe such superposition states." [Ref. 1] On the contrary, I think we're doing it all the time. We just call it 'context'. It is UNspeakable [Ref. 2] since it pertains to the Holon,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/faq.html

As to the much-debated hundred millisecond time scale [Ref. 1], see the discussion of binding process and the neurophysiological correlates of 'context' at

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Penrose.html#NB

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Bushara.html

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Feedback.html#NB

I will appreciate your comments and those by your colleagues. Will keep them private and confidential.

Respectfully yours,

Dimi Chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov/about.html
 

References

[Ref. 1] H. Atmanspacher, Th. Filk, H. Romer. Quantum Zeno Features of Bistable Perception,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0302005

"Entanglement can be rephrased as complementarity of a global observable pertaining to a system as a whole and local observables pertaining to its parts.
...

"This does not imply, however, that we propose to understand bistable perception as a quantum phenomenon in the sense that the related brain processes are usual quantum processes. (Planck’s constant h will nowhere enter in our arguments.)
...

"The significance of the hundred millisecond time scale with respect to the conscious availability of a mental representation offers an intuitive understanding of t_0 in the cognitive context.
...

"It is presumably not easy to prepare and observe such superposition states."
 
 

[Ref. 2] Aephraim M. Steinberg. Speakable and Unspeakable, Past and Future.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0302003

"The orthodox view of quantum mechanics holds that what has been measured can be known, and what has not is "unspeakable." If a particle is prepared in a certain wave packet, that function is to be considered a complete description, and any additional questions about where the particle "is †" are deemed uncouth, at least until such a measurement is made.

"† Indeed, I once received an anonymous referee report which read, in essence, "This work is interesting, but I am unsure what the author means by the word 'is'."