[SPK} I found your page while looking for an on-line paper by Lee Smolin. I must say that I found your ideas to be very interesting. I have been pursuing a similar line of thinking myself and would like to discuss some of your ideas with you. My main area of interest is the nature of Time and am involved in a collaboration with Prof. Hitoshi Kitada and Lance Fletcher. See my web page for more info: http://members.home.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

[RYG] I am glad you found some resonance with your ideas at my site. My ideas are not easy to grasp. Too many sophisms have been invented in the past centuries to see Reality for what it is without a lot of hard work to get rid of them all. I believe experiments can only open the eyes of people at this point, and this includes faculty. In general I want to break the mold... and paper publication is not enough to do that. I also need a mathematician who has enough fresh imagination to at last go beyond our present mathematics which is still tied to Classical Physics (see my math page)... Riemann is no longer around, unfortunately.

I have written my study over a period of 7 years, I describe how it came about in my "history" page, so I won't repeat this here. I looked at your site and some of the papers you have there. I cannot put out a judgement from this very cursory look. I'll try to look at it further later. But I have felt to be a kind of "dissident among dissidents" along the year of my posting on the web because I have attempted to put out something falsifiable, and all with whom I discussed weren't. Usually dissidents don't want to stick their neck out and put themselves in the position to be proven wrong...

[SPK] Resonance indeed! My own ideas are very difficult to grasp as to understand them requires a mental image of how all the "parts" interleave and support each other. I have found that in discussing ideas we must break our ideas into "easy pieces" and try to get the others to both understand that piece and how it relates to all the others. We can see an illustration of such when consider how a couple of people could communicate with each other when each one of them is thinking using different paradigms.

[RYG] I go more on finding the whole from the details. I am not an analyzer, I am a synthesizer. Van Gogh described his state of mind via whole pictures. Taking details of his work destroys the work. In my case I defend what I see in astrophysics by consequences in microbiology. If the whole is missed nothing is accomplished. Another correspondent debates EPR results but fails to see consequences of the whole giving EPR on one side and ignores other areas of our knowledge, which may be a lot less debatable. This is where also I may be a lot less understandable. But I don't see any way out of that. Our imagination must expand from gathering known data, not be reduced to details. The details only come when it is time to finalize the work: the experiments. But that part is critical.

I have attempted a break of my work into "easy pieces" with others before. The problem I have faced was that my worldview is very deep so that in effect a correspondent not having read my work will misunderstand the pieces by seeing them out of context. My study includes (conclusion of phase 2) a critique of Kuhn and his "paradigm" idea [1]. From other sources I know that the idea of "paradigms" has been heavily criticized well before me for years. There is much more than paradigms at work in Science, and Kuhn used this way to put down Science to describe it as a set of paradigms. I use instead the term of "sophism" as Dennett has used [2] and it makes for me a lot more sense. It appears also much more meaningful to describe the history of Science. What I deal with then is bringing out the undercurrent of Science in the past centuries as a series/set of sophisms, defined as "as if" statements with a *potential* to be fallacious, not necessarily fallacious. Space was seen by Newton *as if* it was an arena. This sophism was trashed by Einstein through seeing space as affected by its content, but early in his scientific career he maintained gravitation as a field. Only at the end he had doubts about this "field" idea.

[SPK] We could think of the "sophisms" that have been invented as individual aspect of a paradigm that has allowed for an approximate understanding of our world, but as we can easily see any model we might develop of the world will always be "incomplete" (in the Goedelian sense).

[RYG] Sophisms are different from paradigms. Paradigms in Kuhn's understanding are "examplars" of an understanding, small ways to tackle specific problems. Sophisms are "as if's," such as Dennett's Intentional Stance or Schroedinger/Born Statistical Stance. They cover an entire worldview. They are much more powerful than paradigms, but they are also much more dangerous in the road to finding the truth, by potentially hiding it through a false understanding. I throw out the old sophisms to bring out a better one. This has been the story of Science.

Faraday did not make a model when he saw lines of force. It was a worldwide approach about treating electricity. That approach was addressing how to deal with observed facts about electrical phenomena in a meaningful way, *in a way we could understand*. The notion of field was a sophism because this view entailed that the lines of forces were playing in an arena, space, disconnected from it, it was potentially fallacious (not only incomplete, but plain wrong). This view was different from a model: We may not understand a model (as an "examplar" per Kuhn), but a model may be able to be predictive, so it is a scientific paradigm. Models/paradigms do not necessarily help us understand, they are there to give us a method to formalize the phenomenon or predict it, a very short-sighted goal, supposedly to make Science "efficient," but this is part of a doctrine to put down Science as being incapable of finding an objective truth from Nature, the same approach Galileo's pope used against Science [3]. Through Kuhn (following others well before him - he only represented a trend) the 20th century has experienced a Scientific Counter Revolution (at least in the Physical Sciences - which are the source of our progress) back to Middle-Ages' ways of "discussing" the World instead of doing real Science, and I address this sad fact in my work. [This matter will come back again and again in the discussion here]

[SPK] Ever read the work of Rupert Sheldrake?

[RYG] I just made a Google search to find recent data on Sheldrake. He seems to be very appealing to a certain kind of pseudo-science followers. His "morphogenetic fields" are for me an attempt at making sense of Life as manifestly Life is made out of whole entities (as I describe in my work), not an assemblage of chemical components, and he is right in questioning the limited view of present bioscience. But his proposals have no appeal to me: By not addressing microbiology directly and how development proceeds in its details, thus by not hypothesizing a potential physical process, he opened the door to all kind of dark-ages beliefs. I do not follow that path.

[SPK] I too am very interested in experimental falsification of my ideas but I find that I am an abstract thinker and am not good at figuring out concrete experiments that would falsify my ideas, with the obvious exception of the kinds of experiments that Sheldrake has proposed... (http://www.transaction.net/science/seven/).

[RYG] These so-called "experiments" are not addressing the makeup of our reality in sufficient details. In my view they cannot help us making a scientific theory. We can make a theory alright, but it is more like talking about why vampires are afraid of garlic. The assumptions of the experiments are not precise. We need something with the least amount of unknown parameters in the set-ups to be true scientific experiments. I don't see progress by going through unspecific experiments, only by going at the level of precise observable physical effects, as Galileo told us to do. I address some of the many "hypothesis non fingo" found in the biological literature, such as viral infections and molecular transports. These specific effects can tell us where our knowledge has gaps (if not chasms).

[SPK] I have also been researching the mathematical aspect and have had the good fortune of making friends with several people that are very good at math. I have found that there does already exist mathematical formalisms for most of my ideas, and I am taking a big chance in saying this, maybe for yours too! Most of these mathematical tools come from Computer science and include such things as Non-well Founded Set theory and Chu spaces.

[RYG] I need a mathematician who will look *first* at my description of phase 1 in particle physics and will come up with a way to tackle it formally. I gave a start in my math page and welcome any suggestion from the World. Already existing math has little chance to apply, and this because nobody has looked at Reality the way I see it. Riemann did not have that problem because he could see examples of curved space in everyday life. This is not the case here. Math has to come back to the source, Reality, as Newton and Riemann did, with the help again of Physics to create the sophism able to cover the new understanding, as Galileo did for mechanics and Faraday did for electromagnetism. The key here is how to tackle unseparable sets with the physical characteristics I describe (see my math page - I show there why math must at last listen to physics, not dream of a problem on its own if it really wants to help physics). Schroedinger did not have the math to tackle the real electron, so he invented the Statistical Stance. So far math has not demonstrated why that worked, 70 years later!

[SPK] I will try to read more of your papers to try to understand your ideas of "space generation". From what I have read of your work so far it seems to be an attempt to explain an alternative to the notion of an "expanding universe" ala the Hubble constant in the Big Bang theory, which BTW, I completely disagree with.

[RYG] My theory has no connection with the big bang, it gives an alternative view of our universe (phase 1). My main page describes only one of the experimental bases on which I build my theory (and it just happens to deal with experiments trying to prove the big bang theory - but that's irrelevant), it is not all the experimental base of my work, I deal with microphysics too in the Life realm. I predict we won't never find a Higgs field in particle physics (it will take about 5 years to find out if I am right), but I also give an alternative to neurobiological explanations, with experiments suggested for verification.

[SPK] But I must ask you a difficult question: Is space something that is "a priori" given or is it something that is defined by the "order of coexistence" relations among "objects"? My own work and discussion on the problem of Time is merely the "other side of the coin" from the problem of space. ;-)

[RYG] I deal with a view where nothing exists except eternal (no time is defined) infinite (no space defined) elements having relations among themselves. Reality is the shadow of a gigantic parallel computation between unseparable elements, the physical meaning of an "anima mundi," as Pauli guessed. Reality is discovering its future via that computation at the speed of light. Time is only a local result of the evolution of the shadows. This capsule does not replace reading my work though!

[SPK] You mention that you worked on the 3SAT problem so I figure that you are familiar with NP-Completeness. It is this notion of NP-Completeness that I have found could give us an understanding of why Time exists. Let me give you a URL post that I made to the Time List that I hope explain this:
http://www.egroups.com/message/time/560

[RYG] This text is very interesting. The NP-completeness, as you address it from a separated world, seems to be a meaningful answer. It rejoins my presentation, which does not have the benefit of a mathematical back-up since it deals with an unseparated world where math is not available. I will address below the main points of this text ("Elementary mistakes and Mach Principle"):
1. Origin of inertia: Mach and all the physicists before him saw space as an arena, there was simply nothing between bodies, content of space. Einstein was the first to realize space is affected by its content, and thus space cannot be an arena. It is a physical entity. He rejoined Leibniz' idea at that point. Yet Einstein could never make the full connection of space with its content. Only a true quantum theory can allow that. I address this in my phase 1. Inertia is of local origin in the makeup of the quanta. Everything goes at the speed of light. We see only the shadows of ephemeral associations of monads in which inertia appears (phase 1).
2. Space is subdivided into finite local systems: Yes, at the level of galaxies. Dark matter effects result from interfaces between space systems and the much older background space (phase 1).
3. When a hamiltonian is thought about, space is taken as an arena, and such an approach is thus only a crude approximation valid in only special cases. In my math page I identify all formalisms of QT as assuming that arena aspect of space. Feynman's path integral automatically eliminates any EOR computation which does not contributes to the future of the space manifold.
4. The Totality: This is my space manifold common to all the EORs, a canvas of relations all at the speed of light. I replace a mathematical concept with a physical entity.
5. Manipulation of inertia: There is no way to do so, they result from a computation done in active galactic nuclei producing "new" matter. We can manipulate space though... In my view the presence of content is not the only thing affecting space, the quantum dynamics of its content can also. Such effects have been observed in microbiology for the last 20 years, but have not been seen as such.
6. Mach's principle: I reword it as "Space connects all its content (matter/radiation)." (phase 1 of my work)
7. A Relational Universe: This is my universe! It is 3 times 3D (not 9D). Time is not a dimension. It merely results from relations between EORs associations which themselves create/maintain space and continually find their future (adaptive computation). This universe has no fundamental rest ("anima mundi").
8. Separated world vs unseparated world: Your discussion does not realize it stays in a separated world, and never questions why we are in a separated world. What are "particles"?
9. "The universe looks to be expanding": My explanation is totally different. There is no expansion, only a maintenance of space recycled in AGNs. This can be experimentally proved.
10. The "field" sophism: The only mistake Einstein made was to consider gravitation as a field. It isn't. It only looks like it sometimes.
11. "Probabilities distributions": You don't address their origin (which is from an unseparable world separated by the nuclei entities - see my phase 1). A leptonic space is not separable.
12. NP-completeness of the universe: Infinite parallel unseparable computations are "more" than NP-complete. Markov showed in the 1940s that defining manifolds from elements in topology is uncomputable. I show that Life defines its own space, and as such is not only NP-complete, but unpredictable, period. Creativity is much more than a NP-complete phenomenon because unseparable entities are involved. Computers and Turing theory deal only with separable things (as Classical Mechanics does).
13. Quantum computers: Very limited because QT is itself very limited, being a view from a separated world. QCs are not creative devices. We are "true" QCs because we act on our own spatial structure.

[SPK] I am more interested in finding out were I am wrong that in trying to prove my ideas. ;-)

[RYG] As a first step of a theoretical search this is very understandable. I am concerned though that this would be the end of the process. Scientifically it would be then incomplete. The Scholars of the Middle-Ages were doing the same thing as you are doing. They never found Aristotle wrong. Galileo put out a thought experiment to prove he was wrong but nevertheless went to use inclined planes to be sure he was right! The pope of his time did not like that.

[SPK] To say that we are "dissident among dissidents" is good, but perhaps we can be cheered by the fact that all people such as ourselves are exploring all possibilities however "wild" those may be. ;-) I would not worry so much about "putting out something falsifiable" as much as being sure that such a possibility exists.

[RYG] That's also understandable. I went through the same wrenching process for years. But in the background there were always experimental facts mentioned in the literature without an explanation, left as if "in suspens." And they were not facts like Sheldrake's! They were hard facts recorded for years under the microscopes. You deal with the origin of time, but where are the unexplained facts to be covered by the new understanding? Are there "intrinsic redshifts" observed by Halton Arp which could be explained via your theory?

[SPK] I see the search for a new theory to be more of a collaboration and not the work of single individuals...

[RYG] For me this depends on the theory. By being a worldview my theory requires a single mind to gather all the facts and then "paint" the theory. Details then may be looked at by others and they can counter aspects of the work so the "painting" can be readjusted (or altogether thrown out!). The number of people has never been an essential factor in Science. It is in fact a product of individuals, even if in a team. What counts is Man vs. Reality in order to progress. Science by committee or team never gave anything. That's the difference with engineering. I don't mean to say that exchanges are not valuable. They are there only to refine and clarify things so the ideas can be ultimately communicated. But the ideas come from individuals.

[SPK] I will try to get a better handle on this "dual space layer" concept of yours. Could you give me some good references that discuss it?

[RYG] I call it an "inertial space" in the study, and a leptonic space on my website pages. As I said earlier it would do no good to describe it separately from my work. It depends too much on the other concepts I expose. You have to download my phase 1 text and figures (download the entire study file -both phases- as everything is there). The description is in the middle of it. My phase 2 has the application of the concept using normal QT (in an appendix). The key of my work applicable to Life is there. I make a QT study of a short microtubule, then show that space must be warped in order to get the full quantum evolution of the entire microtubule. This then generates a clone of the system in normal space in an orthogonal fashion, as observed in microbiology. You have to read the "New Findings" page too as more phenomena are covered there involving this concept.

[SPK] I have been reading your phase 1 and I stumbled over your notion of a "Common Space Manifold" (CSM). It is defined as being [paraphrasing] 'one set of connections making up all the realities of other manifolds connections.' (pg. 18) My problem is that since we have rejected the Axiom of Choice, how are we to have any consistent way to define the CSM as "different" in its properties from all other manifolds of monadic relations? Do you see what I mean or am I missing something?

[RYG] The only thing you are missing is that I do not claim this feature to be based so far on an established logic. This is a very important question because it hits on one of the parts of the process leading ultimately to a separable world as I describe later on. The other key question (antecedent to this one) is why would unseparable relations gather into manifolds, either bounded or unbounded to give the various quanta we find through experiments? These questions are hypotheses in my study as I did not have the logic to back it up, it was purely based on a physical hunch (as Einstein's warping of space initially was). In the math page I identify these features as a needed output of a non-Cantorian set theory yet to be laid out.

[SPK] (Continued from above) This is an issue that I have wrestled with for a long time in my own thinking. I think that a solution to this issue can be found by noticing that the way that the "assemblies of monadic spaces" relate to each other could be used to reconstruct the "appearance" of a CSM but such would not be "one" such CSM but an "image" of a CSM within each assembly itself. It is more like an algebraic identity (actually, it is a "greatest fixed point") than as a unique "set". This is a subtle notion that will take a bit of explanation but I think that you are already far ahead of most people in your intuition about this stuff. :-)

[RYG] The common feature must come from a consistency requirement of the overall computation. Building an identity in each content manifold would not bring such.

[SPK] Perhaps we need to take a close look at how consistency itself is definable! I first came to my way of thinking by reading Weyl's Space, Time, Matter book [4] p.122, 124, 135, 136 and considering his argument that the scale/gauge of a particle must be such that it is defined locally and cannot be given by a "global decree". I was strongly reminded of this when reading your bit about the Paradox of the Stadium! [Hint: What role does the Row A play in defining the "shortest possible time"? Answer: It defines the "unit distance." ... ;-) ]

[RYG] I do describe in the particle physics area (phase 1) that the scale of quanta vs. the CSM results from a computation for each structure, thus "local" in a sense. This still does not explain the appearance of the CSM. The interactive computation concept we discuss below may give the start of an answer.

[SPK] (Quoting Paul Auster)

"In the same way, the world is not the sum of all things that are in it. It is the infinitely complex network of connections among them. As in the meaning of words, things take on meaning only in relationship to each other."

[SPK] Yes, and it is these "conditions" that are the the local "contexts of individual observations..."

[RYG] This is your view. My view is that, in order to have "local" features, a "landscape" in the CSM must appear, an "objective" feature which does not require "observers." I advance in my study that this feature can occur only with bounded CSM's (nuclei of atoms) within the CSM itself. The conditions for identities/separability to appear is then for such bounded manifolds to occur. What is known as "quantum decoherence" (and the appearance of the Classical World - a subject formally addressed by Zurek and others as I address in my study) comes from the existence of atoms. The leptonic space I envision does not include such bounded structures, and unseparability (quantum coherence) is thereby maintained in that kind of space. This is a key feature that I claim to exist in living materials and can explain the existence of "Quantum Observers" as I develop in phase 2, an existence you will take as your theoretical basis for quantum decoherence (the Classical World)! (see later) In effect you will then deny that the Classical World has an objective existence as Bohr denied that the Quantum World exists! You will take both worlds as a figment of the imagination of each observer, and will then try to find why there is a commonality between these figments of imagination...of course unsuccessfully. This will show your very closeness to Bohr and Galileo's pope on a philosophical basis, an attitude I perceive as a regression to Middle-Age Scholar thinking, before the Scientific Revolution! It is sad to see how pervasive such an attitude is these days, an attitude that took decades to triumph, and I feebly attempt to redress the situation with my work for the sake of the future of Science.

[SPK] There seems to be some things about computational theory that you might wish to take a look at. Please read the following paper from Peter Wegner:
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~pw/papers/math1.ps
and the others on the website:
http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/pw/home.html
Also there is Wolfram's paper that backs up thinking about NP-Completeness and undecidability:
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/physics/85-undecidability/index.html

[RYG] Reading Peter Wegner's paper, I am stunned to see so many "resonant" points with my theory. I am trying to find out whether the Not-So-Well-Formed Set Theory could be tweaked to cover unseparable/ undistinguishable sets (apparently Wegner has not made the leap yet to an unseparable world since he still deals with our good old computers!). I may be talking of the same set theory in my math page at the site!

[SPK] I believe you are -talking about the same set theory-!

[RYG] ...I finished reading Wegner's paper, so I can be now more explicit. Toward the end he tries to relate interactive computing theory to quantum physics. My opinion is that his argumentation is limited there because of two facts:

(1) He takes quantum nondeterminism as the only feature that differentiates the quantum from the classical world, he misses the main point of EPR, which identifies the profoundly non-local makeup of the quantum. Einstein not only questioned QT because of its nondeterminism (via "God does not play with dice") but also because he thought QT was missing the local aspect of our world (via EPR). In fact EPR experiments are the only experiments that have no explanation via semiclassical theories (per Clauser 1972). Non-determinism is really not the novelty of the quantum vs. classical thoughts.

(2) He ignores the creative and holistic phenomena displayed by Life. These phenomena have been wishfully denied by Artificial Life researchers *in spite of the evidence* (Sheldrake's clumsy approach is a rebellion against that) because they can't see Life more than a classical phenomenon due to the present limited view of QT. Only experiments at the microbiological level can put this question to rest by showing Life as not only a holistic system (which may be somewhat explained in a classical way) but in a larger-defined quantum way leading to creativity. Classical computation cannot reach that feature, nor can QCs. Wegner believes that his extended Turing test using distributed systems will make our computers "lifelike," I don't (he answers Penrose there - I do too in my phase 2 but more efficiently, I believe). For me this is wishful. Creativity will still be missing. I understand that many believe Wegner's stance. That's why my physical analysis of Life is important in phase 2 for my overall thesis - including phase 1.

I believe that, in a physical manner, my theory fills the gap Wegner left open in the correspondence computation-Reality by providing a model of computation using not only geometrical terms (manifolds, dimensionality, directed graphs, etc.) but also by discarding the axiom of choice (AOC). Non-well-founded set theory (NWFST) is necessary since I deal with interactive computation (I did not know that fact earlier!), but it appears insufficient: The computation I consider must not only be interactive but also be *unseparated*. Why?

(1) Because I see Goedel's theorem as telling us that unseparable sets are creative (see my math page: Goedel numbering hid the fact Goedel was dealing with unseparable sets in his demonstration). Wegner sees that theorem as merely giving a "more powerful" computational base (as going from rational to reals for numbers) via interactive computing. I see this position as a (wishful?) misinterpretation of a very novel metamathematical theorem - which for the first time deals with unseparable sets without saying it.

(2) Also because creativity for me is a feature of a set not covered by NWFST. I see this property at the origin of (a necessity for obtaining) a separable world because of a mix of experiments and logic:
(a) the experiential mental evidence (phase 2) - Our minds invent differences/ identities where they are none (e.g. the "qualia" feature of psychology, the paradigm shifts themselves that we all experience!),
(b) the necessity of the CSM, deducible via NWFST (see below), is not sufficient to bring out a separated world (phase 1). The separation must then come from the very unseparable nature of the elements. I cannot see how already separated elements could group themselves in different dimensionality relations, leading to bounded CSMs (atomic nuclei) within an unbounded CSM (e-m space) as our physical experience tells us. That's of course only one of my hunches since there is no non-Cantorian set theory without the AOC which could formally demonstrate that fact.

So I am still in search of a mathematics of unseparable sets.

Note that in the section of Wegner's paper (section 4.2) where the MIMs model is discussed, this model appears to justify my CSM: MIM behavior is not expressible by (reducible to) SIMs. Interactions considered as transactions cannot be serialized because of the *circular* dependency of the I/O process. My conclusion: Due to this circularity, interactions form a manifold of relations, which must be common to all MIMs in order to provide the overall consistency of the computation...

[SPK] Umm, I don't quite understand your thinking here. :-( Could you elaborate on how it is that the circularity (of the relations) gives a separable property? It seems to me that the opposite is the case! The consistency requirement is only a local (with in the individual I/O's) one, so I don't understand how you arrived at your conclusion. :-(

[RYG] Reading the paper by Wegner has given me an idea that these manifolds must be a necessity: That paper is mentioning "vicious circles" as necessary in (if not fundamental to) interactive computations. There is also there the idea that within such an extended logic there must be an overall "consistency" for the computation. In order for that consistency to exist there must be a "reference connection" between all the "vicious circles," the "content" manifolds. Since connections between manifolds are steps of the computation part of more than one manifold, this reference can then only be a common manifold.

I must say that the mentioned "vicious circles" made me jump to bounded manifolds of relations! The "infinite chains" that Peter Wegner refers to also in his paper would correspond to unbounded manifolds. These would be the "content" manifolds of my work. Then I consider *exchanges* between the content manifolds instead of the earlier common reference idea (to follow the interactive computing model), and from the circularity of such exchanges (per Peter's words which I used above) I conclude similarly that they form also a manifold: the CSM (which could be bounded or unbounded). In my mind I treat all these manifolds as Goedel treated propositions on integers, with Goedel numbers, so that I can speak about them, but they are all giving unseparable results! The fact they are unseparable is not in contradiction with me speaking about them (by implying a Goedel number for each). They all exist, very much as the "ultrareals" defined in my math page exist in a platonic sense. I attempt to follow the path of Goedel for other objects beside the integers, as for me he was the first (and only) who had a method to really deal with the unseparable.

[SPK] But Roger, as you might notice the "logic" associated with NWFST is not the usually used "established" logic; NWFST is the logic of stream interactions and, unlike the Boolean logic of TMs cannot be separable into a priori given propositions/states! Your consideration of monadic relational manifolds as infinite superposed root/trees is very close to the ideas implicit in NWFST and thus I believe that we are very close in our thinking. ;-)

It might help you to get a copy of Vicious Circles by Barwise and Moss [5] to get into the detail of this.

[RYG] I'll look into it. But before you pointed me to Peter Wegner's work, I knew untuitively that interacting computers *each separately* did not deal with algorithmic processes. So this work is really not new to me, except for a much better definition of terms (I wish I had that work earlier so I would not have had to go through what I went through). I have dealt with Artificial Life methods before working on my thesis. I dealt specifically with the Tierra system, a well-known program, and back in 1994 I faced the key problem of why such simulations could not truly reproduce Life. Tom Ray first (before my input) followed the idea in computer science - of the early 1990s - about parallel processing, the Connection Machine. This was a manifest flop by 1994 (as the 5th generation CS project flopped). Then he went on the new idea of interactive computing, which was only an implicit concept in 1994, and attempted to put his system on the Internet as a bunch of independent "Tierra islands" exchanging with each other. This was the subject of a workshop at the Santa Fe Institute in 1995 where I argued with Tom that he still could not get Life behavior out of it, interactive computing still could not bring a "lifelike" behavior to the system, and this because you might as well have a big computer and make it internally multitasking with *streams* between the tasks. Yet the entire system was a single algorithmic machine. The non-algorithmic aspect was coming only when you took a portion of the system, one of the tasks, what is called in Physics the dichotomy observer-observed system. For one of the parts there was no doubt that it was becoming that way more "powerful" in what it could do. But the overall power of the system was not more than algorithmic. Peter Wegner emphasizes the power of the separated parts of the system on their own, and I do not disagree at all with him there. But he claims that knowing the entire system is like a God position, unaccessible to us. There I disagree: He still deals with finite equipment, our good old computers, and knowing the entire system is not impossible at all. The only way out for bringing more power is to bring *interacting humans* and their creativity on a network. The fact each part is non-algorithmic does not increase the *overall* power of the system. What was missing in the Tierra system was that *creative* ability of Life not available in machines.

[SPK] One of the most important aspects of Wegner's work that you must understand is that there is no such a thing as an Initial state or origin that is an absolute to all observers, instead with have a constantly moving "window" that spans some finite temporal duration for each and every observer/agent. New information adds to the observer's (a_k, o_k) but at the same time some information is lost. The key is that there is no a priori distinguishability of that will be gained and lost. Again we are shifting from a stance that considers the distinguishability of "what is from what isn't" to be a priori and "globally" given (like the contemporary interpretation of Plato's notion of Forms) to one where knowledge and definiteness (and thus distinguishability) are "local" and contextual.

[RYG] Key point indeed! The unseparable world I see has no information. The creation of information is the big question. I advance that it comes from the creation of bounded CSMs (nuclei). In EPR Einstein thought that the quantum had a definite state before it was measured. QT advances it doesn't, the quantum is not local. As long as we limit ourselves to the space we feel, we cannot envision things without a space. Schroedinger saw God or Shiva in the quantum. I don't.

[SPK] [Continued from above] In other words, we are taking into consideration that since we can only express and distinguish a finite range of possible physically distinct states to each other and thus can not communicate the infinitude that the Forms are to each other, we are dealing with a metaphysical entity (the Forms) whose existence cannot be falsified (much like the Aether) and just like the Aether we can do without it/them!

[RYG] I claim that the CSM entity is NOT a platonic form, it can be identified not only via astronomical observations but also via its physical consequences in microbiology! The creation of space is not a "metaphysical" idea, it has real physical consequences... THIS IS A KEY POINT OF MY VIEWS!

[SPK] Quoting Wegner's paper (section 5.4):

"Turing machines are mathematically modeled by induction-based principles of constructive mathematics while interaction machines are modeled by an *emerging coinductive paradigm* that expresses observation (testing) of objects in an already constructed world."

[RYG] The CSM is NOT an "already constructed world," it is a dynamic entity.

[SPK] To put is bluntly, I am arguing that there is something "not even wrong" with the notion of Platonic Forms! It occured to me a long time ago that for the Forms to have definite properties there has to be associated with that definiteness a definite process that is equivalent to a computation of the "form of the Forms," and, additionally, the computation must not violate thermodynanic laws. The Platonic Forms are implicitly solutions to NP-Complete problems that have been computed in zero time and the infinite "work" associated with such a computation is merely ignored.

[RYG] The separation from the unseparable is just what you described. There I question all the above ideas of "Platonic Forms" as coming from a classical world view... (Plato knew nothing else!) An infinite parallel unseparable computation with no time involved is not doing any "work!"

[SPK] Yes, but the working of our brains do not violate the 2nd law! The dynamics of the mind have their own version of thermodynamics.

[RYG] Only on a classical level of course. Remember that Thermodynamics applies only to a world where space is an arena!

[SPK] We need to talk about this notion of a "separable world" carefully! I would point out that such is the classical world that is observed by each and every observer. One of the key ideas that Hitoshi Kitada's model explores is that QM is a model of the observer itself and the "unseparability" is related to the "wholeness" and "all at once-ness" of an observer itself. I have been researching the work of Karl Svozil in an attempt to get a good handle on this, dealing with quantum logic and its attending paradoxes:
http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/publ.html

[RYG] That quantum logic has been discussed now for over 50 years with no tangible results. The logic of shadows is pretty weird, that's for sure. When it comes to separability I was careful in my work to give what I mean by that in my math page. Elements have no identification means vs one another. Yet they are each elements in their own right, and they are part of a whole, the "ultrareal" line, by following a common set of axioms. Physically, I go back to what Schroedinger saw in the "electron cloud". I still think from his description that he knew he dealt with an unseparable world making up space and time, and he just tried the "Statistical Stance:" This world was acting like a set of *separated* identical elements which could be handled as a statistical phenomenon, like Boltzmann's statistics of atoms. But the unseparables had more than a statistics, they formed a whole too, and Schroedinger's equation reflects that fact. The EPR consequence tells us we are dealing with a non-local phenomenon like a shadow from an object in higher dimensions.

[SPK] Take a look at the Kitada papers available here:
http://www.kitada.com/#eng
For some good discussions of the Copenhagen Interpretation see:
http://www.treasure-troves.com/physics/CopenhagenInterpretation.html

From this reference I quote:

"One of the primary difficulties with quantum mechanics was that it did not appear to have an intuitive basis or physical motivation. At the heart of quantum mechanics lies the Schrödinger equation, which is the fundamental equation governing non-relativistic quantum mechanics, and the Dirac equation, which is the analogous equation in relativistic quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, both these equations lie completely outside the realm of classical physics and cannot be derived starting from classical principles. A simple demonstration of this curious fact is provided by the Schrödinger picture, in which the behavior of physical entities is described by a complex-valued wavefunction. Because imaginary numbers contain the unphysical quantity , which is a purely abstract concept that is physically meaningless, it is inconceivable that such a complex-valued wavefunction could correspond to a physically real entity. Nevertheless, the predictions of the Schrödinger picture have been confirmed in numerous "real" experiments.

This poses the philosopher of physics with a quandary. If the wavefunctions are "fictitious," then how can they be used to describe "real" observable physical properties? The resolution of this dilemma, according to Bohr, was to reformulate intuitive beliefs about the goals of physics.

According to Bohr, "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature" (Herbert 1985, p. 45). Therefore, Bohr maintained we can never "understand" the quantum world or assign physical meaning to the complex wavefunction. Furthermore, we cannot use quantum mechanics to build up the physics of the macroscopic world, since quantum theory takes the existence of classical phenomena for granted from the outset. All we can do, then, is use the formalism provided by quantum mechanics to describe certain observations. This lack of "deep reality" is one of the primary tenets of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

As Bohr understood it, quantum mechanics cannot be comprehended on its own terms, but only understood superficially on the basis of the observable processes it describes. Therefore, according to Bohr, "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum description" (Herbert 1985, p. 17). This premise maintains that sensory observations are the only reality in physics, so that quantum theory--or any other theory in physics--cannot be extended beyond what can be directly observed."

[SPK] From (http://www.alquds.edu/seminars/quantum/survey.html) we have the following:

"3) The validity of Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics: All questions of observations are referred to the classical observer concept – it is a fundamental entity. In Q.G. the wave function includes the observer, a classical observer has no place, and hence, the Copenhagen school of thought needs to be modified to another observer concept: “the quantum observer”. This concept can be understood if matter, in all of its varieties, is recognized as a quantum gravitational excited state. Contrary to the Copenhagen interpretation, this quantum observer does not exist a priori, but is an intermediate concept produced by the theory. The above argument raises the following questions: Can a quantum observer be tunneled? And if so, then how, where and when?"

[SPK] I am making a big deal of the existence of many observers, e.g. many QM systems, not just one and I am "separating them by their spatial and temporal observations (Leibniz's order of co-existence and order of succession). While there is really only a single QM system, that I am identifying with the totality of *all possible* observations, such an undivided whole can be decomposed into subwholes that have different space-times of observation. Thus I am advocating a multiple space-time notion, but this line of thinking is subtle and may seem to be a huge oxymoron at first, but if you bear with me, I am sure that we will see that we do agree. ;-)

[RYG] No, I don't see it as an oxymoron, only as a way to see the world as an interacting computation from an already separated world. The existence of the undivided whole (in David Bohm's term) is still not seen. I think that the point of true unseparability is not addressed. For me the quantum/monadic world is an infinite whole outside our space and time, creating that space and time, and outside any classical observer (or quantum observer for that matter). The separation we experience comes from the very nature of the unseparable as I outline in my study.

One suggestion that I have is that you take a look at "Surreal numbers" (Google search).

[RYG] I did. The Surreals are an interesting approach to the theory of numbers, especially when dealing with the infinite. The structures obtained are something to behold since quaternions and Lie groups are contained in them. Maybe this is a way to find the particle physics structures I am looking for. But dealing with them is beyond my ability to tackle at this point, and besides they would not resolve the question of unseparability and non-local aspect of the quantum.

[SPK] I need to explain my mind-body dualism idea to explain better the nature of a QM observer. It builds on this paper by Vaughan Pratt:
http://boole.stanford.edu/chuguide.html#ratmech

[RYG] Through this paper Descartes' dualism idea is seen as meaning that both QM and classical worlds coexist in the phenomena of the mind, and this theory is formalized using Chu spaces. I think this is a great approach, but I will suggest to extend it to our Reality at large: The quantum and classical coexist there too, and as in the brain phenomena which create a physical interface between body and mind (the MT network) per my phase 2, a new interface would be needed in this Reality at large: The CSM! As I describe in my phase 2 brain phenomena are like computer network structures (roughly, even though quantum) supported by molecular structures. Reality at large in turn can be seen as effecting a computer network structure in the Peter Wegner picture also, but there the network would be our common space. As the brain's network constantly readjusts its structure through the ongoing quantum computation so does space to accomodate constantly changing I/O necessities between processors (in that case the "particles," "radiation" and nuclei - themselves bounded spaces containing processors too). This dynamics would lead to General Relativity - and more. (Don't forget that all monadic relations go at the same speed, so all the relativist effects can come out from this "speed of light canvas.") Wegner's analysis allowed me earlier to picture all these "network" relations forming a dynamic manifold, i.e. we have a 3D manifold of monadic relations in a higher dimensional evolution at the speed of light, the CSM. It is not a "metaphysical space" as you claimed earlier, it is real "objective" space, but we can at the classical level of our perception see it as "empty space." I note here that the rest of my physical analysis for the content of space (the origin of bounded manifolds acting as processors at the monadic level as I describe in phase 1) is yet not formally addressed since I don't have a mathematics of the unseparable.

[SPK] [As mentioned earlier] The observer itself, Hitoshi and I argue, is Quantum Mechanical. That which is observed (the phenomenological "world") is purely classical.

[RYG] I agree with this position if you understand your observers exclusively as QC networks like us since then a definite physical interface is seen between the two "planes" of existence. As a physicist I have to bring the ontology of the system Pratt is thinking about in a precise physical manner so we can hope to deal with it on an experimental basis (and this development is not an optional thing to do if we want to have a sensible theory!).

If that is your understanding you then rejoin my physical description in phase 2. We ARE quantum mechanical entities (in an Everett way) made out of about 1 trillion quantum processors in glial cells (not neurons!). The needed quantum coherence (unseparability) of the evolution is due to us residing in leptonic space, (not normal space, the space of Reality at large, the CSM!) observing classical records under the form of *persistent states* of microtubular arrays in neurons (also in leptonic space). These classical records contain both the I/O interfaces with the outside world and our previous experience (memory). We act in turn on that classical world *as well as on ourselves*, the circuitry of our neuronal connections and microtubular arrays, by building these arrays and changing these *persistent states*. The world in turn can change these states. We are not only a network of quantum processors, we are a self-modifying system adapting to tasks brought upon us by the world (or we are bringing upon ourselves), unlike classical computer networks. Our brain is then truly the classical shadow of ourselves, and only a shadow.

[SPK] "Normal" space is a "virtual reality" generated by the QC's in an interactive way... BTW, have You ever seen the movie The Matrix?

[RYG] Yes, I saw the movie. But no, I *strongly* disagree when you infer that the common space of Reality is only a product of our minds with nothing corresponding to it in Reality itself at the quantum/monad level! I had another correspondent (Cagle) in my correspondence page who believed that. You may want to look at the discussion. Space "out there" is created and maintained by *all* the elements of reality surrounding us and making us. It is not subject to our making at all. We are making an internal representation of it in order to deal with it (the 'virtual reality" you are considering), as when we look at Bela Julesz images, but that does not make it inexistent outside us! The universe and its duality quantum/classical operate like our brains in that sense, and astronomical observations can prove so when seen in the proper light.

[SPK] It seems from this conversation with Cagle that we are very close! What I need to understand better is exactly what you mean by "the elements of reality". If they are given by the monadic relations then we agree,

[RYG] "Elements of Reality" is another term for monads, that's written all over my study!

[SPK] ...but we do need to figure out exactly how it is that we can model many observers with this way of thinking! As I see it the "unseparatedness" and "separatedness" are both present and must be dealt with equally. I think that Bohr failed in his thinking because he focussed too much on one side of this issue.

[RYG] I agree. The duality is there, in the way Descartes saw the two "planes", as modified by Pratt but extended to the universe at large as I just sketched earlier.

[SPK] My thought start out with the observation that there exist many observers, not just one. I am amazed that this seemingly trivial statement is neglected in physics. For example, in all the discussions of the "measurement problem" that I have seen only a single observer is considered. When we take into consideration many observers we have to deal with the tricky issue of "concurrency" and the tangled theories of information and communication and even the very idea of "what is meaning."

[RYG] However, the notion of "observer" implies an already separated world into at least two parts. This can be done in only one of the preexisting two "planes" of existence within Descartes' dualism, so it is an inconsistent notion if you attempt to use it to explain the very separation of the classical world. The website you quoted earlier referred to "quantum gravity" to explain the existence of such observers... But this last theory is not based on experimental facts, my phase 2 is, and I do show there how such observers can exist.

[SPK] The QM "behavior" of the observed phenomena is gotten at indirectly, by inference, but *is never observed directly*. The act of observation itself is then considered (by me and this is a *very rough sketch*) to be an adaptive mapping between the quantum mechanical computations by quantum mechanical systems that are "separated" by the Boolean "worlds" that can be identified by the individual "rays" that make up the Hilbert space of the QM systems. My idea is an adaptation of David Deutsch's notion of a "simulation" generated by quantum computers.

[RYG] I assume you get this from Deutsch's 1985 paper, not his recent Fabric of Reality book. This is the view by Everett, not the Copenhagen view. I agree completely there and, again, my phase 2 gives a physical view of this. This way you will then understand that the QC's considered presently are very limited because we use them the opposite way they should be: They should be seen as the observer and the "observer" of Copenhagen QM being the observed!

[SPK] The key point that must be understood about my idea is that I am granting equal ontological status to both the classical world (that which is observed and experienced by an observer - and such can be electrons or galaxies-) and the QM "world". I do this by noting that a duality relation exists between the two and that this duality is the same one that Descartes' 17th-century philosophy of mind-body dualism hinted at, but the "causal interaction" between the Classical and QM worlds is not a mechanical one (e.g. a "pineal gland"), but is more subtle.

[RYG] I would not use the term "mechanical," rather the term "local." I identified above what this analytical view ontologically entails in Physics so experiments can at last be defined there...

[SPK] Sure, but the term "local" has a few differing meanings so we will have to be careful to be explicit.

[RYG] The non-local aspect of the quantum is the key here again. The interaction is not local (a fortiori not mechanical, Newton has nothing to do there).

SPK] We agree! The interaction between Body (classical -that which is observed-) and Mind (quantum - that which observes-) is NOT Local! What I was saying above is that Descartes mistake was to assume that is was local, e.g. mechanical.

[RYG] So we agree there :-) Of course Descartes knew nothing of the Quantum!

[SPK] What I need to do is to discuss the implications of monadic relational spaces with you some more in combination with the key definitions of space and time that Leibniz figured out, e.g. space is given by the order of co-existence (of observables) and time is given by the order of succession (of observations).

[RYG] We will discuss this matter below. Here you have to be careful with Leibniz' monads, he considered them finite (which makes no sense), Bruno took them as infinite, as I do.

[SPK] Were did you find the mention that Leibniz considered monads to be finite? All of the texts that I have read indicate that Leibniz considered them to be infinite; perhaps merely countably infinite, e.g. the infinity of the integers. I have not been able to find much information on Bruno's thoughts. :-(

[RYG] I refer to Leibniz's and Bruno's works in the early part of phase 1. This is indeed an important fact, and anybody who does not know this fact should not be talking about monads. Leibniz did not want to upset the Church, any infinite eternal thing was anathema in his time. Bruno was burned at the stake for that very thought, as this is the strongest anti-religion stand that can be found in history. Bruno's thinking, unlike Leibniz's does not fit any idea about a "supreme creator." What I said above is from my readings along the years (and again the references are in my phase 1). I have quotes from both Leibniz and Bruno in my study describing this matter, but it takes reading Leibniz's Monadology and Bruno's mess of writing in depth to understand that key point.

[SPK] I have been reading the phase 2 paper carefully and am having a hard time figuring out your justification for the uniqueness of the CSM.

[RYG] I have already elaborated on that uniqueness matter via Wegner's view of interacting computation, as well as above via Kitada/Pratt's view of dualism giving a unique non-local interface between the QM and classical "planes." My original approach (in my study) is that a mathematics of the unseparable will have to identify this uniqueness. We will discuss your philosophical dislike of an objective unique CSM below.

[SPK] It seems to me that you are trying to build a model based on Quantum computing but your model focuses on the "physical" hardware of such and does not get into the details of the "software" at all. I am working from the other direction, as is Pratt, and this might explain the confusion we have going on here.

[RYG] I DO address the software (theory) part (the quantum dynamics) to show why a warp of space (the CSM you question!) is required in the QM evolution described! The hardware (the physical system) and the software (the theory) depend on each other. Part (and only part) of the description is about the hardware because we must *first* demonstrate that a quantum phenomenon does occur in living materials based on my view of space. This is where the notion of "space generation" is critical (something you in effect dispute by denying the objective existence of the CSM!), both theoretically and experimentally, as well as what kind of space exists in Biology. This phenomenon effects the Mind-Body interface as the CSM effects the Monadical-Classical World interface! "Quantum protectorates" are created (other features are there too but they deal about how Life constructs and maintains itself). These protectorates are the biggest hurdle in front of established thinking about Life, and we need to experiment there and experimental work must inspire theory. "Hard" physicists, and mathematical physicists such as yourself, are not prepared to deal with this field. "Software" work is childplay in comparison, but I do discuss an elaboration of Everett's Relative State approach to QM so we may start to grasp the features of a true quantum computation. Also you can't construct a software without having an idea about how the equipment is structured, ask any software developer (such as myself), especially when you have to deal with a self-modifying system! We are quite a different kind of computer!

[SPK] I see what you are discussing in phase 2 as an attempt to show the existence of the structures necessary for QC to occur in "living materials". So far as what you discuss I see no problems.

[RYG] This matter is essential for my thesis, and your insistence on the "Quantum Observer" idea in effect proves that fact, it is NOT a side subject at all! Your lack of detail comments here shows me that you have not made the theoretical connection, but the consequences of the physical layout for the theory is critical. This is where the perception of the whole "painting" of my thesis appears beyond you. If you did you would see how the CSM idea you criticize so much when reading phase 1 may have a fundamental reason to be correct through phase 2, and could be experimentally verified. I need a physics-inclined biological fellow capable of perceiving the whole to give me a real hand. Theoretical Physics is decidedly too isolated in its ivory tower these days to tackle a brand new world!

[RYG] The matter of CSM is too critical to let it at what I said earlier. It is at the base of both my "open" General Relativity and "true" QM ideas making up my work. You have also not appreciated the key scientific method point of phase 2 on that matter per your last reply. Since philosophy is decidedly your inclination, here is more on a philosophical standpoint. You implied that "Normal" space is a "virtual reality" generated by the QC's in an interactive way and does not have an existence on its own. I fundamentally disagree. You are caught in the sophism of Kantian philosophy.

Here I quote Weyl's Space Time Matter book[4], p. 3:

"Kant was the first to take the next decisive step towards the point of view that not only the qualities revealed by the senses, but also space and spatial characteristics have no objective significance in the absolute sense; in other words, that space too is only a form of our perception. In the realm of physics it is perhaps only the theory of relativity which has made it quite clear that the two essences, space and time, entering into our intuition have no place in the world constructed by mathematical physics."

So here I will stand alone: The CSM is an unique monadic entity as objective as any nucleus of atom existing outside and in spite of all the "observers" we can dream of, classical or quantum.

[SPK] This is the crux of our disagreement and I will argue my case based upon what you are both saying what what I infer that you are implying. ;-) I will seem a bit harsh but please understand that I would want the same treatment for the same behavior!

[RYG] I am glad I hit at last upon the key of the disagreement. I can see below where statements by others have been put out of their original context to satisfy their own views. This is typical of philosophical debates. I welcome the opportunity to redress the steering back to its original road, as we definitely went astray sometimes on the road to Alice in Wonderland between Leibniz and now.

[SPK] Let us review what Leibniz said:

"As for me, I have more than once stated that I held space to be something purely relative, like time; space being an order of coexistence as time is an order of successions."

[RYG] Leibniz had a problem expressing his very deep view of the world, there is no doubt about that, and the remark above was after seeing comments by others about his Monadology. In fact it is such statements that led to kantian views one century later. I will not here go on analyzing Leibniz in general, I am not a philosophy professor. However, I read in Leibniz an understanding totally different from the one Smolin and you have, a view that succeeded to overcome Leibniz's in the 20th century through the success of Einstein's breakthrough. Without going into a lengthy analysis, on the face of the sentence above you have to note that relativity is identified in the "coexistence" of unmentioned monads, not in the objects or "observers" we see on the classical plane. Monads cannot be seen (see the Monadology), they are creating the content of space as well as creating that space via their "coexistence," thus this created common entity can only be relative to the monads! You are plugging the notion of "observer" regardless of the intent of the words above, but this notion does not belong there at all. What people such as Weyl failed to see in Einstein's work is that space was for the first time manipulated by its own content, it was "relative" to its content... Weyl saw only the special relativity part, the one coming from the monadic relations making space at the speed of light. This has been a common mistake through the 20th century: There are two parts in the Relativity theory, with "relativity" being only one part! (Einstein himself had misgivings about that title from the beginning.) I see the second part as the one addressed by Leibniz, the relativity of the structure of space vs its content, its "order of co-existence"!

[SPK] All that is required to see how Kant's and Leibniz's thoughts combine is to consider the "fact" that more than one observer, and thus more than one set of perceptions, exist!

[RYG] That's where your car is going straight to the ditch! The slight opening given by Leibniz has grown to the worst heresy, thanks to Kant and the misreadings by Weyl and many others, leading to our present Alice in Wonderland physics. This has been so common in the past of Man's understanding of the world.

[SPK] Together I take these two ideas to say: *For every observer* there exists an order of coexistence of that which such observes and an order of successions.

[RYG] You can say a lot of things once you accept sophisms ("observers"), but they will lead you nowhere, unfortunately. We must go back to where the notion of "observer" came from: Descartes!

[SPK] What this has to do with a "world constructed by mathematical physics" other than the obvious fact that such is a mere model of the world and not be be mistaken for "the world" itself, but many fail to do so. :-(

[RYG] Ho no! Our theories attempt to describe our world, they are not merely "models" as Kuhn wanted you to believe (as Galileo's pope said too) in order to put down Science! They may be incomplete or a simplification of Reality, but they are not a fantasy; unlike other stories in the lore of Humanity they do tell us something true about our world. I appointed myself to redress the steering of the car back to before it went into the ditch, and as a result make our theories fit our world a lot better, as it was originally thought before kantian philosophy took over. My next two sentences below fit this point perfectly.

[SPK] (Quoting RYG) "For me this shows why our present mathematical physics is inadequate! It has in effect formalized a philosophical system, not our world. Space HAS an objective significance. Why? Because it is built out of its content, per Leibniz. The kantian philosophy goes fundamentally against the leibnizian philosophy, and Einstein late in his life started to realize that fact. This is the key fallacy in our present theories, both relativity and QM."
We really don't need to know anything about Kant or Leibniz to know that! Just read Chris Isham or Lee Smolin's papers! They admit "something is wrong!" At least Smolin is trying to find answers and guess what, he is working with the Monad model! So is Julian Barbour and others. (BTW, I have corresponded and talked on the phone with Barbour, he is a neat guy, but his main idea is wrong!)

[RYG] I talked with Smolin about a year ago, I mentioned my site to him and he may have taken my ideas seriously since then... He was not talking about monads back then! Back then he was failing to see the mountain in front of him, he still was thinking of dark matter as a great discovery, not questioning at all if this was matter at all! As many others he was missing an overall view, and this, I believe, because he is in the Establishment environment, not an outsider. He CAN'T throw out the thinkings of the Establishment. A great rethinking must be done in order to redirect that car, and such can't come from within that Establishment, it would be too dangerous for it!

[SPK] But, back to the point, what the "so-called" objective significance of space and time is *NOT* that there is a 4d cube "out there" that we are just "world tubes" in! NO! We both agree that space (and time) are constructions that emerge from QC, ...

[RYG] For me they emerge from monadic computation outside of ANY observer!

[SPK] ...but it seems that you are missing a key notion that is also involved and that is
(1) the issue of the concurrency of QC events. When we are considering a model of space and time that is generated by quantum computations we have to deal with the issue of how it is that the QC events are ordered relative to each other. Vaughan Pratt arrived at his conclusions by studying this problem and he has the best statement of what is going on with it. Add to Concurrency,
(2) we also have to deal with the NP-Completeness problem, and
(3) there is also the issues of realism and Platonism that you are "into."

Simply put there is no way at all to consider the concurrency of events to "exist prior to the execution of the events themselves."

[RYG] This states the fallacy of conceiving the CSM as an entity in the classical way of conceiving entities (such as computer networks). The "creativity" of the monads by being unseparable produces such a feature of their evolution, a space! There is simply no time at the level of the monads! A fortiori "concurrency of events" is meaningless on that plane. Remember the lightning strikes and the train story in Relativity... The CSM is unlike other quantum structures, and unless you have a "true" Quantum Theory you cannot apply ANY of the present QM formalism to deduce anything about the CSM or the appearance of a local time! That's for point (1) above. For points (2) I feel it is irrelevant because we are not dealing with classical computation, and (3) if I am with Plato, this is first news to me...The CSM is a dynamic entity like the nucleus of an atom.

[SPK] To say that the CSM is independent and separate from all other monadic relations also requires it to have an order of coexistence and succession that is "pre-computed" ab initio.

[RYG] I never said that the CSM was such! The CSM is "maintained" by the content, without a sense of time (here I complete Leibniz's thinking: The order of succession does not mean time is created! Relations at the speed of light are tricky!). We simply have to give up on the notion of concurrency at the monadic relations level. I know that this is hard to swallow but the train story was also hard to swallow.

[SPK] [Continued from above] This is the same fallacy that Barbour's idea (explained in his book The End Of Time [6]) suffers from. :-( . Leibniz himself had this problem and introduced the ad hoc notion of a "pre-existing harmony" to explain it away, but such a notion is dependent on the existence of an entity (God) for its generation and maintenance. If we are going to introduce such notions into our model we must not dare call them science!

[RYG] Hah! Here Leibniz faced the key understanding that time does not exist at the monadic level and of course he could not see how to go beyond that with his finite monads. Bruno was well in advance of him, and needless to say, he did not need a god to find the answer (maybe that's why he was burned at the stake). He saw the notion of "wholeness," that monads are infinite elements and harmony is a sought-after principle of the monads (the Groupish Monad Principle of my phase 2), not something given from the "outside." We seek that when we go dancing, as our ancestors the spirochetes did in their collective undulating ways. I WILL dare call that notion science! The problem you are identifying comes from the inadequacy of the present QM formalism. My phase 2 gives an example of how this principle operates (not its formalism of course - I doubt it can be formalized though).

[SPK] (Quoting RYG) "I see now why it is so difficult for you and others (such as Cagle) to consider a CSM, a unique entity made out of monadic relations (something hard to visualize but which is relativistic in nature since monadic relations are "speed of light" things) which does not depend on "observers" for its existence. The *fictitious* breakdown of our world into observers and observed is the problem modern physics is facing. "
Fictitious? How do you figure? The fact that more than one observer exists and that we cannot "read each others minds" like we can read books implies that there is more to this than you are considering!

[RYG] The "fictitious" comes when the notion of "observer" is being extended from the original Descartes' notion to other things than QCs (human and animal brains). There is a definite interface between QCs and reality at large, not so with other entities such as rocks. All the sudden the world is being built by (human) observers! But Mars exists without observers (we don't create that planet by looking at it with our telescopes... Galileo's pope believed that!) QCs (universes within a universe) are very rare in our world, and it is plain silly to base that infinite world out there on our petty existence!

[SPK] [Continued from above] And also, what in the world does the "speed of light" mean outside of a classical context? It is merely a null mapping function between the observations of observers.

[RYG] I use that term because there is no other term for objects which have no time, object eternal by definition. The lack of proper term is indicative of how strange to our classical experience such entities are. Let's expand our imagination, please!

[SPK] I am arguing that we have a "common world" because each of us, as QC systems have similar (bisimilar actually!) observations, not because there is some CSM "out there."

[RYG] Fine, but that does not change the fact the world out there exists without us (and the space that comes with it), and our physical theories want to address that world, not the world only experienced by humans. That's why using the notion of "observer" to study that world in general is fictitious.

[SPK] We must remember that monads incorporate both the observer and the observed thereby together simultaneously and thus explicitly manifest the unseparateness of the two from each other.

[RYG] That's your view! If you want to introduce a notion manifestly not applying to the monadic world, fine (see your inapplicable definition later on). But I don't see this path going anywhere.

[SPK] When I imply that the CSM would have to be depend on the observations of QC observers I have come to such a conclusion only after careful consideration! The main problem with your Objective CSM idea that I see is that it is an attempt to reintroduce an Absolute into Leibniz's monadology that is not allowed by the very way that monads are defined. Monads are the only entities that exist and are such that they reflect each other and if there exist a monad that was "different" from all others, like your CSM, then the definition of monads falls apart!

[RYG] That's your key point, and the failure of Leibniz on that matter is evident. Bruno had a much more wholesome notion in mind. We saw earlier Leibniz's failure with "harmony", Bruno saw sound and music as a metaphor for that "wholeness" of monads. The mystery of harmony which we find in listening to music is the *act of creation*, the very thing that physics to-date misses in its theories. The CSM is NOT an Absolute at all, it is a monadic dynamical structure like a photon or an electron. I never heard a photon as being an Absolute, yet it does have non-local effects, as in EPR or its wave aspect, outside time and space, effects described by a formalism but with no ontology in present QM! My approach says that part of the CSM is absorbed in AGNs and is developed in galactic radiative emissions, it IS a quantum dynamic entity, and it is as real as fire! It is not a "different monad," it is the part of the monadic world that provides a reference to all the other monadic evolutions which include photons, electrons, etc. It is not an orchestra director mind you. It just happens to represent the unity of the world, exactly what Mach saw in his Principle. But it is much more than Mach dreamed of. The "emptiness of space" first seen by Newton is a fallacy of the first magnitude, and no 20th century "vacuum/zero point energy" concept can make do for it.

[SPK] Either the CSM is an attribute of every monad or monads do not exist. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

[RYG] Well, I can...The CSM is only one of the structures of the monadic world (not a platonic form!). It can change into other structures, matter or radiation in AGNs (via sinks of space instead of black holes) or come from radiation turning into space (Hubble effect). You may want to look at Conway's Game of Life and see how via a few local rules so many structures will appear. Except that monads do not follow local rules (there is no such thing as locality in the monadic world), they are global rule automata (see one of my appendices of phase 2). Monads are all the same, but the global rules of the computation are there to define their groupings and separatings, all without time defined. One of the global rules is that they must be part of an assembly connected to the CSM. There is no such thing as an "isolated" monad. Other rules are there, such as the Harmony Rule (see earlier) but without a mathematics of the unseparable giving me a true Quantum Theory I cannot go further there.

[SPK] Please, understand that I do not mean to be harsh as it is obvious that your work is a serious thing and I value immensely what you are doing, but remember that "if you can't be wrong then you can't possibly be right!"

[RYG] Well, you may want to look at your position there...This question of who is right is why I stand falsifiable with the experiments I propose in 3 separate fields of science! You already said you are not falsifiable, and no amount of philosophizing will help there, in this discussion we are not using formal statements, only thoughts. There is no way to know who is right without experimenting (a small reminder that you may be too close to Galileo's pope there in your position by believing you can find what is right from what is wrong by a pure thought process - this is where I have nothing to do with Plato or Aristotle!).

[SPK] (Quoting RYG) "When you create a separation observer-observed this is when you create fallacies in the kantian vein. "
We avoid the fallacy as I noted above the monad is both the observer and the observed, a dual pair, of which exist, at least an uncountable infinity!

[RYG] The definition of observer you give later on can't apply to monads! So you are not avoiding anything, your car has crashed long ago.

[SPK] You may wish to take a look at the work od Spinoza and see how he adds to this idea! One of the people that I am collaborating with (Lance Fletcher) is an expert in Spinoza and Leibniz and we have been talking about this stuff for a long time...

[RYG] I know of Spinoza a bit too. Bruno was earlier, Spinoza heard of Bruno, but he really never grasped the thrust of Bruno's message, the main fear of Galileo's pope. So these ideas have been around for a long time. And still after so many centuries we don't know who is right! All what we know (and this from experiments and observations) is that our theories still don't muster the full nature of our world! I only hope to help a little, as I have not given up on the future of Science, as you appear to have in a covered way.

[SPK] (Quoting RYG) "Descartes' dualism is the first philosophy which created the notion of observer, and for a good reason: We are true QCs, a part of the world with its own holistic makeup, a universe within the universe, very much as nuclei of atoms are universes within our universe. We get to interface the universe at large, and there is the key of your physically undefined generic and formal QM observer fallacy: Unlike other classical or QM complex objects, including your QM observers, our classical impressions come from quantum states in our microtubular arrays affected by that universe. Such states are persistent in time, thus we get only a finite or countable part of our universe at any time! The continuum of the universe is not accessible to us, even though we are unseparable entities of cardinality higher than the continuum. We appear to think in finite or countable ways because we use the classical records (persistent states) in our MT arrays to think aloud - to put it in language form!"
Here is a conversation I had last November with Htoshi Kitada [HK] on our perception of a classical world:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[SPK] What is it that constrains the observer systems to only be able to make finite observations that are ordered in spatial and temporal modes?

[HK] The root of this restriction is from our language. QM systems are described by our language at the final level or step. The language has only a countable number of sentences. (Because the sentences consist of a finite number of alphabets (or characters). The set of such things is of countable even if we potentially have a countably infinite symbols available. This is the point I answered to you on the list.) That only finite observations are possible comes from the fact that we can form only a finite number of sentences within our life.

[SPK] This is something that I see as having an answer in a study of the computational aspect of observation and communication! We see that in computational systems with finite resources of memory and/or potential energy (to actually "run the machine"), there is a limitation on the ability of one computational system to simulated the behavior of an arbitrary other computational system, assuming that there exist a priori an infinite number of different computational systems. I am proposing this (bisimulation) notion as a way to explain why we get this restriction that you see as coming from our language. I agree with you, but I am trying to think of this as applying to any QM system, not just "us humans". ;-)

[HK] If we could use QM language to express things, then we (observers) could describe things of the cardinality of continuum, as the number of bases of QM state space is of continuum as I explained above. But actually we speak classical language, with which we express QM logic and so on. This is the cause that we have to have two aspects of the world, one is QM and another is classical. The QM aspect is unobservable in this sense that we cannot express it by our language (what we can express on QM is just the structure of QM theory, not QM facts by our language). Classical aspect is the world of things we can express by our language, then these are real for us in the point that we can communicate these classical facts by our language to others, whereas QM facts cannot be communicated by our countable language except for expressing the structure of what we assign to the imaginary QM world.

[SPK] I would point out that the continuum nature of the state space forbids the ability to discriminate "this" from "not-this" that is a key aspect of classical communication. Recall the ambiguous definition of information: "Information is the ability to choose reliably between alternatives"... I have been making the argument that the Classical aspect of our commonly perceived world is something that "emerges" from the never-ending process of "clocking".

[HK] Thus QM aspect and classical aspect are the consequence of the restriction of our language. What we express is done by our words, thus this distinction is real for us. No other restriction is here. This is just a consequence of human's restriction. What we are considering or our problem in science is how and what we (humans) can express about the world. Then it is natural that ourselves give the world that distinction or give it the division into two aspects, QM and classical. No imaginary ability can resolves this division.

[SPK] I agree. We can also see that this implies that the Cartesian Cut between the two worlds is not an external absolute but is a subjective distinction. I propose that there is something missing in the usual thought regarding this issue and it is the important role that is played by the fact that our actual observations of "the world" as individuals are not merely given by the spectrum of possible (a priori) observations, but also involve, at least tacitly, the possibility of confirmation and communication by and with each other. In other words, I believe that the restriction and/or selection of certain observations that we actually have has something to do with the way that we communicate with each other regarding our individual observations. Does this make sense so far?

[HK] Yes, surely. Your are saying here the same thing as what I have said above.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[RYG] Hitoshi acknowledges we (as QCs) are limited to the language to communicate but he has no idea why we are so! So his explaination has no basis. Further he has no answer when you attempt to find a generalization to non-human QM systems so the classical world could be explained outside our existence that way. My phase 2 attempts to give an answer as I described earlier for humans (true QCs). This is where our approaches are very different: I look at what could make a true QC with physical systems, while you and Kitada remain in formal systems with no attempt to get to the physical layouts that could realize the functions you attempt to logically identify. For me your way is not the way to advance Science and the classical world does exist outside of us, we can prove this via experiments, not philosophy.

[SPK] (Quoting RYG) "...(While internally our true thinking - quantum computation - is unaccessible to our awareness since this demands separability of concepts.)"
True, but I would argue that the fact that we humans have microtubular arrays and a sufficient complexity and number thereof that gives us our sense of "self-awareness."

[RYG] If you argue that our self-awareness comes from "sufficient complexity" you are in the same bag as the Artificial Life people, or Prigogine and his autopoeitic whorls, no better than the phlogiston idea. I am attempting to go a little beyond that dark age alchemistry in my phase 2.

[SPK] I would tentatively say that to define an observer all that is required is for there to exist a quantum entanglement of its decomposable "parts" that allow for the existence of a collection of probabilities and a unitary transform that can transform anyone of them into any other. This would apply to a single electron as well as to a galaxy!

[RYG] That's a mathematical description with no physical meaning! I am still waiting for a definition of "observer" which makes sense (this was the big failure of all the versions of QM). The only observers I know are the ones who deal with persistent quantum states (we humans and animals), the only kind which appears to have been considered by Descartes.

[SPK] (Quoting RYG) "So here I will stand alone: The CSM is an objective entity (such a a photon or an atomic nucleus) existing outside and in spite of all the "observers" we can dream of."
Well, I hate to say this but you are not really standing alone! Your opinion here puts you in the same ideological school as the "realists" (such as Einstein). :-(

[RYG] Well, maybe I will say Thanks... I can see that the non-realists (sophists?) a la Kant, with whom you obviously belong, despite their philosophical triumph in the latter part of the 20th century thanks to the teachings of Mach, Bohr and Kuhn, have not gone very far in advancing our physical theories. To their credit though they generated a lot of words and formulas in the past 50 years, including a new ptolemaic theory.

[A subsequent phone conversation reemphasized the dynamic aspect of the CSM as any other quantum structure and the inexistence of time in the monadic plane, somewhat in the line of Barbour, but not in any manner related since Barbour does not give a physical origin of time as found in the classical world, his "nature creates the impression of time" is in line with SPK's kantian philosophy about space! They may need to be both pinched and see if they think it is only an impression...]

{RYG] I am now at last acquainted with a few papers dealing with Chu space. Unfortunately, as I was suspecting all along, and as it happened with the interactive computation theory, this model/formalism cannot deal with the fact that QM is fundamentally non-local as EPR experiments have proved many times.

Here I quote Pratt's paper "Chu Spaces: Automata with Quantum Aspects," p.6. In response to quantum entanglements found in QM and not obtainable via the Chu space formalism, Pratt says: "This [QM formalism] leads to seemingly paradoxical faster-than-light correlations between spins of formerly associated particles, violating the Bell Inequalities and confusing even such luminaries as Einstein." This text outright advances that it is not Chu Space theory which is inadequate but QM which is not right! Sorry, but experiments prove Pratt wrong!

Below in the text on that page Pratt is looking for classical chaos theory to rescue Chu spaces from their inadequacy for application to QM in quantum entanglement! Finally, I could not believe my eyes when I read at the end of that page:
"It is hard to believe that nature drew up the complex numbers in their entirety before embarking on the Big Bang! Better that they evolved later..."
Apparently Pratt does not accept mathematical concepts as eternal... Wow!

This has turned me off entirely with this line of formalism. Its use with Descartes' dualism is also contrived due to this inability to handle the non-local aspect of QM. In fact this non-local aspect is also telling us that the concept of observer is incorrect: An observer must be able to be non-local, and classical theory as well as QM consider only local observers. The EPR experiment, as I describe in several places, involves a non-local measuring instrument to observe a single quantum phenomenon, thus uses a non-local "observer." I had to insist on the term "non-local" when I told you the pineal gland had to be replaced by a non-local interface... Chu spaces did not tell you that. Since Chu spaces can't handle non-local phenomena it is useless to cover QM, period.

So far the only theory you told me about which appears to have maybe some use in further development of my theory is Kitada's Quantum Observer. But here again I am not sure it is adequate for the same reason... Whoever follows that idea must see how physically such an observer needs to be built, as it must be non-local! My description in phase 2 describes such an observer, and emphasizes that point for future experiments.

[SPK] Umm, oh well... I don't read Pratt's papers in same way, I see Chu spaces only as a possible formal language to make sense of QM. We still have to hash out some issues, but we don't need to deal with Chu spaces,

[RYG] Reading that page I quoted as well as other papers leaves no doubt. Wishful thinking is very common in areas which need props in order to get grants...

[SPK] [Continued from above] but, on the other hand, I think that you should re-evaluate your thinking about computation! There are both space-like and time-like aspects that you seem to dismiss. I recommend that you read up on the concurrency problem in distributed computation...

[RYG] I did, and this confirms that such a theory can't hack the non-local effects of QM also. In his paper "Why Interaction Is More Powerful Than Algorithms" Wegner says on p.11 "Penrose's argument that physical systems are subject to elusive noncomputable laws yet to be discovered is wrong, since interaction is sufficiently expressive to describe physical phenomena like action at a distance, nondeterminism, and chaos [9], which Penrose cites as examples of physical behavior not expressible by computers." Ref. 9 is his paper "Interactive Foundations of Computing" and I went through that paper, mentioning concurrency and all that stuff, but nowhere there is an attempt to connect to non-local physical effects. Wegner can't! A computer network has no sense of "space," Cyberspace is not a space! Until computers contain physical elements that use QM non-local effects, they can't say they have the power of non-local effects. My work refers to a number of rather recent experiments that show the brain acting in a real QM fashion, including displaying such non-local effects. (Example: recently observed cells sending long-distance cytonemes - shots - to other cells during development.)

Also, I have at last looked at Hitoshi Kitada's papers and I believe I can evaluate the thrust of his theory at this point. The idea of local time makes indeed very much sense, and this follows my own theory. However, I see two key problems with the way he is using the idea:
(1) He has no means to identify what local means, he uses in fact the term "glocal" and even though he goes through a lot of descriptions he says in effect that this is an arbitrary definition depending on what the "observer" wants to look at.
(2) His definition of a local system is artificial because it includes only matter (via the "center of mass" idea) and never mentions radiation as part of it, even though he does say that an observer needs radiation in order to "see."

His description of the EPR experiment is a symptom of the inadequacy of his views: Mainly because of (2) above, he cannot come to grip with the experimental fact that there are non-local phenomena with no theoretical limits in their range (within present QM), and that they are NOT relative to the "point-of-view" of the observer. There is simply no other "point-of-view" where EPR experiments fail.

His description of the Hubble effect is also of that sort: Contrary to what he says, there is no other "point-of-view" where the effect is not physically there. I see it is as a physical objective product of the existence of space (again, experiments will prove that view as correct). AGN's are too, as well as Life.

I know you will want to argue on the above points. I will advance my own theory as a rebuttal there:
(1) Time cannot be dealt with separately from space, one needs the other for its definition,
(2) both are local in the sense that they are defined locally in their properties via the definition of the quanta themselves, both matter and radiation (Kitada never addresses nuclear phenomena),
(3) the makeup of the quanta defines what is local via the phenomenon of separation between quanta systems (Kitada never addresses the question of why we are in a separated world - he shows that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation represents a world separable in subworlds but the demonstration assumes already separated "observers!"),
(4) space is as real (or unreal) as time, and since there are local times there are also local spaces (My theory identifies at last this fact: Space is made of "space systems" simply because of the need for a reference to define all motions in any space: the speed of light, nothing can evolve faster, including space, space is as real as fire, it needs a physical process to create and maintain it.)

In my theory, the definition of "local" is consistent between time and space through their common makeup - the quantum/monads. They are both defined at the level of galaxies by being systems generated by AGN's, such as quasars (see Halton Arp's observations). An "observer" in my view could be as big as a galaxy because it would fit in the same space system and have a corresponding unique time reference (which BTW could be 3-dimensional).

I have not seen experimental predictions in Kitada's work [7]. The experiments to prove my theory (in Astrophysics, besides two other very separate scientific fields) are not only the limited range of the Hubble effect that I am the only one to predict (defining our space sytem), but also the quantized redshifts from AGN products, as Arp categorized, about which I learned only recently and after my work was done! Since new time and space systems are initially computed in AGN they evolve from these initial "mini bangs," (There appears to be many kinds of them, some giving gamma ray bursts, other proton -new hydrogen - jets, and yet others spewing blobs of matter in blazars.) Time and the total energy of the generated systems must be quantized. What we see from Earth are redshifts intrinsic to such systems: The Hubble generic redshift is tied to the makeup of our own system, intrinsic redshifts are tied to other space systems, the observed systems (on top of the generic redshift which blurrs their quantized character somewhat).

Finally Kitada uses existing QM (for matter only) and GR (there he can't address black holes because he assumes only small gravitational effects) without questioning them. These theories are both far from being an all-encompassing description of our world, and in my theory notably missing the fundamental concept of CSM's, which existence I hope to prove (thus not the figment of our impressions!) via Particle Physics, Astrophysics and Life experiments. Of course, unlike Kitada, I don't go via formal systems since the present systems must be discarded, and the math for the replacements needs to be invented.