vol VII: Notes
2012
Notes
[Sunday 11 November 2012 - Saturday 17 November 2012]
[Notebook: DB 73 Spring2012]
[page 161]
Sunday 11 November 2012
The computable manifold is pixellated by ℏ so Δp.Δx ≈ ΔE.Δt ≈ ℏ.
Feynman I 2-7 'the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment', a very carefully manipulated form of experience. Feynman
'there is no distinction between a wave and a particle.' Not good. The waves are the collective behaviour of many particles, each of which is observed at a point in a wave, Born rule. Individual events are quite certain as the photon hits a certain point in the target, although collectively they dorm a wave-like distribution. Quantum theory computes these distributions, and believes that these computations are deterministic. Here we feel that each event is a deterministic computation of an apparently randomly chosen eigenfunction, The theory of communication tells us, however, that well coded messages have the appearance of randomness impresses upon them by the statistical properties of their sources [maximising entropy] which are nevertheless determinate when we take the meaning which the source is trying to communicate into account. So we may see this paragraph as a random distribution of letter but a knowing reader will get the point of what I am trying to say. The randomness arises because the space of meanings is much greater than
[page 162]
the space of the source alphabet.
Particles with mass are 'dynamic' messages, like myself which have individual processes of their own. Massless particles like photons and gravitons are 'static' messages forever fixed by their senders. We may think of them as elements of the internal process of the whole Universe seen as a particle, which we are observing from the 'inside' rather than the 'outside' as we observe massive particles.
Massless particles have no antiparticle and must be created and annihilated by interaction with some massive particles. Massless particles are also bosons and there are no massless fermions. Meaning?
Lepton and muon differ in mass, ie rate of internal processing to achieve the same phenomenology, ie efficiency of algorithm [I have felt this for many years, but cannot recall ever writing it down before].
Feynman I 5-1: 'Time is what happens when nothing happens [NOP].
We can guess that the frequencies / energies of atomic levels are defined to infinite precision if we can only get the lines down to delta functions, and so we are led to the belief that they are determined by diophantine (integral) computers of some sort.
[page 163]
F I, 6-1 Probability <==> repeatability, periodicity, waviness [with random phase].
'By the "probability" of a particular outcome of an observation we mean our estimate of the most likely fraction of a number of repeated observations that will yield that particular outcome.' [an inductive argument from many to one]
Probability mediates between past and future.
Monday 12 November 2012
Conservation of momentum - action and reaction are equal and opposite - spatial symmetry, ie space itself has no input into the behaviour of objects moving in space. This is true in 'flat' space, but not in curved space where 'space' exerts forces on particles that are equal and opposite. In the context of this 'duplex' communication we might write |ψ| = |ψ*|
From a physical point of view the mathematical notion of limit is misleading because observable reality is inherently atomic, which leads us to the idea that unobservable reality is atomic also, although we are inclined to model it with continuous amplitudes.
Feynman page 11-1; Weyl: symmetry: 'a thing is symmetrical is one can subject it to a certain operation and appears exactly the same after the operation'. Ie a symmetry is from the point of view of observation a null operation.
We are. in a sense, prisoners of our representations. Each new representation in all the arts and sciences opens up new domains of possibility, whether it be texts about quantum
[page 164]
mechanics or a new material with very interesting properties.
What we are looking for is a representation that embraces all possibilities [our candidate is the transfinite computer network].
We have a deeply ingrained deprecation of the world which is the dark side of the dream that all this was made just for us and everything is taken care of by a loving God who will ultimately keep us out of trouble if we do what we are told.
So let us say that everything is buit out of atoms of space which have 4D structure comprising [0,] 1, 2, 3, 4 D.
Can I see myself as an atom of space, a integral whole which will die if its internal procedures accumulate too much error.
Atom of space = unit wire. Edward Fredkin and Tommaso Toffoli; Conservative LogicFeynman I, page 12-9: 'So far as we know today for electricity [the principle of superposition of fields] is an absolutely guaranteed law which is true even when the force law is complicated because of the motion of charges.
There's more than one way to skin a cat - many different algorithms lead to the same endpoint, some more efficient than others. The Phrase Finder
One can imagine that among the first used oa rithmetic was in trade, counting sheep and multilying by the price,
[page 165]
maintaining an inventory of goods and money and so on. Geometry grew in parallel as surveying and engineering became more frequent. This leas naturally to measuring, the beginnings of astronomy by measurement, leading to a continuous process of development to the astronomical work done today. Classical physics can also be built on the nature of trade, flows of energy, momentum and action in one direction being balanced bu similar flows in the opposite direction. The most abstract flows are the flows of probability that we see in quantum mechanics.
Probability is a scalar. We can imagine maps of probability density and see them squirming before our eyes as probability flows from one point to another. Probabiliity is measured by frequency, that is energy, and although we normally parametrize probability on a scale 0 = impossible to 1 = certain, we can also account for recursive phenomena by imagining probabilities greater than q that can nevertheless be normalized to 1 when we take the whole system into account. So we can map all possible frequencies of electromagnetic radiation on a scale 0 to 1, where 1 means ℵ0.
What is a metric? A number associated with distance. How do we measure distance between points in space-time? Rods and clocks says Einstein, reference bodies. Now reference bodies can exist abstractly in the minds of theorists but an experimentalist must construct real physical reference bodies against which to measure the phenomenon of interest. A metric enables us to make an abstract model of the 'fit' between reference bodies, like the comparison of a frequency to a frequency standard. If the Universe is a computer network, why is it three dimensional? Because all permutations of wiring are possible in 3D without crossing
intersecting.[?]
Frequency is a degree of freedom. The world complexifies by having a bigger repertoire of events which occur with decreasing frequency sop that the total rate of action = energy is constant.
The states of the atoms of space are determined by the interaction between them and can be represented as vector, tensor, spinor, pseudo-vector or axial vector.
The velocity of light is local and therefore a feature of the atom of spacetime, which ids in effect an algorithm, set of algorithms, set of eigenfunctions etc.
The physics part of the project is something of a stumbling block and I am not certain why. On the one hand I do not think I will every really understand quantum field theory, yet any theology of the Universe must have something to say about it since it is our current description of God's body.
We might say that we need not worry too much about the physics except to know that it delivers the chemistry necessary to build anything computable (at least) and to go on from there, but the quantum mechanical nature of the world cries out for explanation and the creative power manifest in physics is an instance of the creative power of the Universe at all scales.
Qualities of representation are size and versatility, as proved by the matirx representationof groups.
[page 267]
Atoms of space are simply points with fixed momentum and spin. They work on eachother by force so that energy etc can be exchanged. The abstract is the layer (symmetry) beneath the concrete.
Lagrangian: T - U: extremalize
Conservation T + U: constant
Feynman I page 14-5: Force not very useful in Quantum mechanics, because it has nothing to do with time (?)
Feynman page 15-2: Maxwell's equations do not obey Galileian relativity.
The atoms of space are what we call the vacuum. They are alive, their network forming the hardware foundation of the particles (fixed points, messages) transmitted through spacetime as hardware.
Wei Hui page 106: 'The only true pleasure in life is to escape from the prison of one's own making. Thomas Morton (Merton?) Thomas Merton, Hui
World religion in a mess. Mission? Fix it.
Atoms of space must be fermions to keep their states separate, communication through bosons.
Atoms of space: pixels on the universal interface.
Wei Hui page 168: 'panic came over me, like a sorceress who discovers her magic has vanished.'
[page 168]
Tuesday 13 November 2012
It is very hard to break the feeling that space is continuous or to give the power to logical continuity that it deserves.
We being with atoms of time, each one comprising a tack and a tock, a complete cycle which joins seamlessly to the next without need of field or particle because there is no memory and no space to be traversed.
The idea here is to generate concrete images of the abstract since all the layering idea says each layer while concrete in itself is the abstraction (symmetry) from which the layer above is built.
Physics seems to be based almost exclusively on continuous arithmetic relationships between various variables, which are generally conceived of independent of one another (orthogonal) but linked by various equations eg F = ma. In quantum mechanics the number of independent variables may be infinite but they are bound together by the Hamiltonian which explicitly accounts for their numerical relationships 2 by 2. One of the most fundamental relationships between orthogonal dimensions is Pythagoras theorem which lies behind all the rotations of axes, which rotations themselves are expressions of covariance.
Part of my faith (my lifelongish hypothesis) is that everything started off very simply and then became more complex. Both the classical God and the general theory of relativity (and its initial or final singularities) opt for the simple beginning. Quantum field theory, on the other hand, imagines the world becoming more complex as we go to higher energies. At least mathematically, through the
[page 169]
combinatorial explosion of diagrams of lower and lower energy and momentum as we go up the orders of perturbation in quantum electrodynamics.
So we start with zero degrees of freedom in the eternal, infinite, classical One. Then we go through the degrees of freedom from 1 to aleph(n) . . . following the same general algorithms of creation and annihilation that were foreshadowed long ago on the transfinite oscillator, an enormous collection of harmonic oscillators both superposes and spread out through space. You cannot have a real superposition without two or more memories to hold the elements of the superposition. The idea for this structure is worked out in complex (2D) numbers and realized by the 'superposition' (not sum but product) ψψ*.
Learn the language and then set out to express your own ideas in their language.
What are the matrices for the classical (dissipative) logical functions, ie functions that destroy entropy (abstract, annihilate) rather than create it, perhaps non=dissipative systems like quantum mechanics. The amplitudes correspond to imagination, the real probabilities to speech (expression, representation).
The lifetime of conscious and subconscious processing has gone into this writing is very much greater than the processing needed to actually write it down so that somebody else may read it an feel an echo of their own mind.
All of us from plumbers to judges to gamers are always making judgements, What does this mean, what is the best thing to do next,
[page 170]
etc. Each judgement is the state of a computer process when it halts, comes to a fixed point by (eg) summing a series.
Atoms of space have minimal personality, they are simply units that implement arithmetic addition and subtraction or integers(?). Perhaps negative numbers and subtraction comes later. The units are quanta of action, all positive.Unconscious = transparent layers.
The Universe is unified at the user level (God) and the hardware level (god) and flowers into a huge network of messages in between. So a computer is a controlled network, but its inputs are effectively uncontrolled and so too its outputs.
So I shall state all of my quantum mechanics in terms of two state systems.
Atoms of space are bosons because they can be of any size, fermions becase they cannot be superposed in the same state.
Uncertainty principle explanation of atomic size. Peter Hadley
The reason the probabilistic assumptions of statistical physics work so well is because the ideally coded signal is in fact random, that is symmetrical with respect to a space of symbols, like the sides of a die [Shannon: 'approaches white noise in statistical properties']. The fact that this writing has a certain probabilistic structure in some abstract sense in no way
page 171]
detracts from the fact that this is a concrete block of words which can be meaningfully decoded by somebody with a similar turn of mind. These words are a representation of my idea, that is my conscious mental state. Claude Shannon: Communication in the Presence of Noise
Sometimes I think the task is hopeless. Sometimes I think I have succeeded already and just have to document and evangelize. Both about 50% true.
Relativity establishes orthogonality, spacelike separation.
How does the atom of spacetime determine the velocity of light [= frequency x wavelength]?
Feynman I 17-3: Imaginary interval called space-like.
We describe atoms of space-time with 4 vectors [of 'length' h, Planck's constant].
Atom,s of space derive their 4-momentum from the initial singularity ie the initial singularity is the basic hardware layer of the computations that are stoms of space - computers.
We cannot observe atoms of space, only what they do (invisibility theorem).
Time is the source of space = energy is the source of momentum [p2 = E2 - m2.
Wednesday 14 November 2012
We understand heuristic structure (see Lonergan) by Bayesian statistics. We start off no idea like a newborn babe and then the clues start to come in, each observation[page 172]
leading to a refinement of [our estimate of] the probability structure of our area of interest (first of all food, so mammal babies home on nipples, the connection to the mother). Lonergan
Come to a dead end with physics, so off into metaphysics to broaden my vision. Lonergan (page 411) writes '. . . let us say that explicit metaphysics is the conception, affirmation and implementation of the integral heuristic structure of proportionate being.'
'proportionate being' = messages we can decode, ie proportionate to us, so let proportionate beings be peers in a certain layer.
Space has three formally identical degrees of freedom and one different, being unidirectional rather than bidirectional [an different sign in the metric].
Lonergan page 417: 'A heuristic notion, then is the notion of an unknown content, and it is determined by anticipating the type of act through which the unknown would become known. A heuristic structure is an ordered set of heuristic notions. Finally, an integral heuristic structure is an ordered set of all heuristic notions.'
,p. '. . . latent metaphysics is the dynamic unity of empirical, intellectual and rational consciousness as underlying, penetrating, transforming and unifying other departments of knowledge.' ie the human mind.page 419: '. . . since it is a structure that is coincident with inquiring intelligence and critical reflection, metaphysics is not open to revolutionary change.' This statement makes no mention of the human mind, which is good because intelligence and judgement are universal.
KNOWLEDGE - SYMMETRY
[page 173]
What we are saying is that divine creativity can be logically explained and such an explanation takes the mystery our of God and makes God truly flesh, to be recognised as the world we inhabit.
Lonergan Chapter 15: Elements of Metaphysics
page 456: 'Metaphysics . . . asks what can be known here and now of . . . future explanation. it answers that, through full explanation might never be reached, at least the structure of that explanatory knowledge can be known at once.'
Really? Is Lonergan's metaphysics true?
Lonergan's big error is the assumption of the empirical residue, that is stationary points (observables) without a dynamic source, that is a dynamic explanation. We explain fixed points by the dynamics as we explain the dynamics by the fixed points, differential describes dynamics, integral describes fixed point. So we need to develop an analogue of calculus in the network.
Theological Studies: We may see the Papal declaration of infallibility as the dying gasp of a totally discredited theology with no evidence in its favour. It is left with brazen self assertion. Infallibility - First Vatican Council
'. . . we have already determined that the empirical residue lies in the individuality, the continuity, the coincidental conjunctions and successions, which are to be known by experiencing and only by experiencing.'
[page 174]
For a Catholic the empirical residue is a necessary putdown of the real world to maintain the exclusivity of the alien God [who has created a world with completely arbitrary meaningless features].
Lonergan is following the ancient tradition, first documented in Parmenides, of using a psychological model of knowledge as the source of a physical model of the world. Following Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle, so he writes '. . . potency, form and act, since they are known by experience, understanding and judgement, are not three proportionate beings but three components in a single proportionate being.'
Lonergan page 457: ' 'Potency' denotes the component of proportionate being to be known in the fully explanatory knowledge of an intellectually patterned experience of the empirical residue', sounds like the data input to mind. Is 'potency' real? Data is real, it is all we have to go on, the input from the world to sense and sense to mind. From our point of view, potencies are the fixed points in the Universe, the outputs of halted dynamic processes.
' 'Form' denotes the component of proportionate being to be known not by understanding the names of things, nor by understanding their relation to use, but by understanding them fully in their relation to one another.' How does this sit with the theory of measurement in quantum mechanics, where was we see is a function of the observable we look with?
" 'Act denotes the component of proportionate being to be known by uttering the virtually unconditioned yes of reasonable judgement. Which looks lie the output of a halted computation, a new fixed point concocted by the dynamics of thought (which may or may not follow the real dynamics)
[page 175]
based on the input set of fixed points which we have named potency, potentially intelligible (unless they are empirical residue).
Lonergan page 458: '. . . form is what is known by insight; . . . ' Decoding.
Psychologizing Aristotle and Aquinas terminology, which is good since we see all action as intelligence.
page 460: Substantial and accidental forms. Can ognore this, the world is all substantial. The quantum mechanics of colour is the same as the quantum mechanics of nuclear physics or chemical bonding.
page 467: 'Every higher genus is limited by the preceding lower genus.' If so, how come we, the self confessed highest and most versatile genesis have evolved from something like bacteria, quite a low and restricted genus?
So, compounding the error: 'It will be convenient to introduce the nae 'prime potency' to denote the potency of the lowest level that provides the principle of limitation for the whole range of proportionate being.'
prime potency = energy? Not a limitation but the force driving creation, symmetry and symmetry breaking?
page 470: 'Being has been conceived heuristically as the objective of the detached and disinterested desire to know, or more precisely of whatever is to be known by intelligent grasp and reasonable affirmation.' The words of an intelligent eunuch. All knowledge is motivated by the need to survive by decoding messages from the environment and acting appropriately.
[page 176]
'Just as cognitive activity is the becoming known of being, so objective process is the becoming of proportionate being.' Nearly merits tick, just delete 'proportionate' as a redundant restriction.
Lonergan page 476: He's got the notion of layering right, so why does he see the lower layers as limiting the higher?
Not much to learn from Lonergan any more. He is mined out.
Thursday 15 November 2012
Lonergan is bound by the constraints of Christianity so he assumes the separation between God and the world. No help to me.
We intuitively understand special relativity at human velocities, leaving for work an hour before starting time to give us time to travel, etc. What is the equivalent energy-momentum transformation?
ds2 = dt2 - dx2
dm2 = dE2 - dp2
Feynman I page 15-1: 'For those who want to learn just enough about it so they can solve problems, the theory of relativity . . . just changes Newton's laws by introducing a correction factor for the mass:
m = m0 / √(1 - v2 / c2)
[page 177]
Quantum field theory imitates the world but how coincidental is this? We have seen how close Newton is to the observations, but Einstein's real explanation is completely different.
Why is quantum field theory so complicated that it takes fat books to explain? Is this because we are working in the wrong basis? Looking for enlightenment in Feynman and Zee.
1926-27 '. . . Schrödinger, Heisenberg and Born . . . finally obtained a consistent description of the behaviour of matter on a small scale.
The behaviour of energy, that is rate of processing. As we see energy moving around the network in the guise of a flow of probability. [general relativity sees only energy]
What are the stationary points in the Universe? Quantum mechanics tells is that they derive from the complete set of eigenfunctions of possible observables. (ie the alphabet of the Universe) which is the countable set of Turing machines, that is computable functions.
Atoms of space are represented by complex numbers and superpose linearly, they are like bosons, ie atoms of 2-space, so the whole Universe can state in one state and then fermions emerge.
Feynman III page 1-7: 'We must conclude that when we look at the electrons the distribution of them on the screen is different that when we do not look.' Something to do with the invisibility theorem, to look is to communicate which is to take a snapshot of the dynamics.
If the electrons are not seen (do not communicate or halt) we have
[page 178]
interference.
Uncertainty principle: resolution limit is a quantum of action. This is the resolution limit of a harmonic oscillator (clock), one tick, which can be mapped onto space and time as a certain interval.
The quantum of action is the unit interval for the measurement of the distance between events n spacetime, so we measure such distances integrally as the number of atoms of space, each corresponding to one quantum of action.
Scientifically we cannot go with Christianity. Without changing the data, we seek a new model for the experiences of life.
Quantum mechanics in a nutshell [Feynman III] page 1=10
1: P = probability, ψ = probability amplitude, P = |ψ|2.
2: If there are alternative ways amplitudes add [= interfere].
[3: Amplitudes of consecutive elements of a path multiply.]
'One would still like to ask "How does it work? What is the machinery behind the law?" No one has found any machinery behind the law. No one can "explain" any m,ore than we have just "expained". No one will give you a deeper representation of the situation. We have no ideas about a more basic mechanism from which these results can be deduced.'
Can a quantum system explain itself? It must be able to do so if the world is fully intelligible in Lonergan's sense. What we are asking does the quantum formalism so flll the space of possibility that there is no room for any alternative? It
page 179]
is 'necessary' in the logical sense that it is a dynamic tautology, living on itself as Aquinas' God does.
What is an amplitude? Mathematically simply a complex number, but what does it mean, ie to what does the word correspond in reality? [Is it a continuous approximation to something digital?]
Always being sucked along by my very impure desire to know [carnal knowlege?] I want to know for my own good (spiritual and material) and for the good of the world, which may respond with payment for my work. Lonergan can indulge his pure desire to know because he was a poor, chaste and obedient member of an order which took care of his every need using funds derived from the faithful [as I set out to be].
We all love impurity and it is easy to see purity as the Nazi evil.
The Universe has to be resolved at some minimum 'spacing' and that spacing is ℏ, first seen as energy then as momentum.
Feynman page 2-8: Observation requires an exchange of energy that changes the states of both observer and observed.
Let's try the path integral method using only integral vlues of the action.
Probabilities are digital in the sense that at each trial event x either happens or does not happen, but when we apply the law of large numbers up to the cardinal of the continuum, we may have an uncountable set of outcomes whose integrated probability is 1. Kolmogorov
[page 180]
Feynman III page 2-8: 'Unless a thing can be defined by measurement, it has no place in a theory." Measurement: cardinal / ordinal. The measure of a person is a multi dimensional vector expressed in terms of courage, honesty, prudence, reliability etc.
page 2-0 Heisenberg: 'I do not need to answer [questions of the exact position of a particle, which hole did it go through] because you cannot ask such questions experimentally.'
Does God exist? do we exist? Yes, says Descartes, because we can see ourselves existing.
page 2-9: 'It is not true that we can pursue science completely by using only those concepts which are directly subject to experiment.'
Three general principles of quantum mechanics
1. P = |ψ|2
2. Independent processes amplitudes add.
3. Amplitude for route is product of amplitudes for parts of route.
Friday 16 November 2012
The form of Maxwell's equations is preserved by the form of the Lorentz transformation, so maintaining the velocity of light as a fixed point in space-time. We change mechanics to preserve the electrodynamics, which is to say that mechanics emerges from electrodynamics rather than vice versa. I am coming along slowly, now only a hundred years or so behind the game. Harmonization of Newton and Maxwell achieved by mass transformation.
[page 181]
Adjustment of mass = adjustment of time, since m = E = time frequency.
In special relativity, the 'appearances' induced by Lorentz transformations are revealed by collision or rather interaction to be real, since the underlying consequences of relative velocity )energy, mass momentum) are real.
It takes a quantum of action to carry a photon across an atom of space, that is one cycle or period in space or time. From this point of view, size of atom is inverse of energy, so high energy = high resolution.
Quantum mechanics may bot apply so much to small scale as to low resolution, so that the rather vague interfaces between human individuals may also have quantum mechanical explanations.
Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe ApplebaumSaturday 17 November 2012
Mathematically, Parmenides problem is solved by the advent of fixed point theorems.We are looking for a fit, how to fit our world of digital computation onto the world of observation. But what is the point? The overall task is to show that the world is divine by fitting the world of experience to the ancient model of God by showing that the ideas of a completely simple God and
[page 182]
a world of growing complexity are compatible, by explaining the creation of observable fixed points in the divinity of which we are part. Our current approach to creation is through communication, both as a model to explain creation and as a means to explain the human world to the human world as a subset of the explanation of the world to itself analogous to the way the Λογος [Logos, Word] explains God to itself and bearing in mind the concept that the word was made flesh.
So as well as 169 Articles there is space for an article to Theological Studies entitle 'The Word is made flesh' where by flesh we mean the complex [physical] system by which God lives.
Space-like intervals are represented by complex numbers so the whole space of intervals requires complex arithmetic. Is this a clue to the presence of complex arithmetic in quantum mechanics? Has is something to do with the fact that complex (dualistic) operations are necessary as intermediate stages in moving from a real problem to a real solution?
Although it is often characterized by revolutions and paradigm changes, our public scientific discourse shows a history of a steady accumulation of understanding guiding the search for further understanding so that at any point the current state of knowledge stands as an heuristic structure for the development of the next state. So here we meant to build a new theology from the traditional theology that has become fixed by the institutional power of the Catholic Church.
Timelike - real
spacelike - complex
[page 183]
We follow a trend. Yahweh was wholly other. The Christian God was momentarily embodied in the world as Jesus of Nazareth. We now go a step further and assume we and the whole world are divine flesh.
Feynman I page 17-5: 'Would any paradox be produced if it were suddenly to become possible to know things that are in the spacelike intervals of region 1?, ie c = infinity. From the point of view of ordinary human velocities c is infinite, so we can see many things which we cannot affect, like a ball that the goalie cannot reach going into the goal. Olber's Paradox. Photons can affect all that they can see. We cannot. Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia
Vector - set of quantities (degrees of freedom) coupled by a transformation (like me a set of coupled processes that can walk around [unchanged].
Dimensions such as mass, length and time are emergent, all emerging from action [ML2T
The important part of quantum theory is not the theory of an isolated system, since it is in principle unobservable and so can only be tested indirectly, at least. And no one can deny that it is the foundation of a very successful metaphysics.
We define metaphysics as the process that goes on behind the observable physics [modelled with mathematics]
[page 184]
Our real interest is in the quantum mechanics of measurement, which is where our data comes from. This is explained in the paper by Zurek. Wojciech Hubert Zurek
The basic idea of communication, measurement or knowledge has been around for a long time and reached perhaps its most developed representation in the Word of God theory.
Lonergan Verbum. Lonergan
Lonergan page 8: The illusion that our mind is 'pure spirit' arises because the physical substrate of mind is transparent to us. I do not see or experience any of the neurons that are working together to produce this output.
Idea in mind - structure in space.
As an exercise in applied mathematics we can build a model which suggests that the human mind is isomorphic to the word of God up to a transfinite scale factor. This will please those clergy and prophets which speak to us on behalf of God, but it carries the downside that our minds are also isomorphic to the minds of atoms, worms, snails, plants and all the things we consider to be somehow beneath is because we are the Children of God.
Lonergan page 87: 'From Aristotle Aquinas derived a method of empirical introspection.' Since most of our mental function is is transparent to us there is little reason why this should show us how our mind works?
[page 185]
On the other hand, insight, orgasm, exhaustion and all hose other end points of strenuous activity are clear marks in the otherwise continuous flow of life, and so we might extrapolate the idea to all other processes in the Universe that halt and emit a signal.
Lonergan page 87: '. . . the human soul does not know itself by a direct grasp of its own existence. That is the prerogative of God and his angels [the distinction between God and the world introduces much unnecessary complexity into theology etc].
Knowledge is not obscured by matter but by the huge complexity of the system and its transparency to the casual observer. It takes very close watching to see when is going on in any milieu.
How do we put this into modern language: insight means discovering an eigenfunction of a transition (whether it be of an electron or any other source).
Theology for geeks. Theologians, like the software engineers of the last century, have a lot to learn and the best people to teach them may be software [engineers]. After all, politics is the process of engineering a society. Unfortunately, politics suffers from two basic problems: ignorance [and] corruption . . ..
Maybe Cantor says that even God cannot totally see or control itself.
Soul = process
Lonergan opage 88: Lonergan says intellect sees itself in each act of
[page 186]
understanding but invisibility theorem says no because see yourself seeing yourself . . . is an infinite regress that cannot be realized.
Lonergan page 90: Thomas: 'Anima humana intelligit seipsum per suum intelligere, quod est actus proprius eius, perfecte demonstrams virtutem et naturam.' This might be Aquinas' experience but ideas just pop up for me and if I am near this book I just write them down, pieces from the jigsaws I am trying to construct.
Lonergan: 'grasp the nature of your acts of understanding, and you have the jkey to the whole of Thomist psychology' ie the random activation of mental eigenfunctions = idea, verba, forms, mental acts and so on, most generally stationary points in the mental dynamics. Many people (we suppose) have noticed this parallelism between mind and quantum mechanics.
Lonergan page 90-91: 'intellectual light' the halting of an network computation, eg return from a search engine.
page 92: '. . . the assent to first principles has to have its motive too, for assent is rational, and that motive is the light that is naturally within us . . . the light of agent intellect is said to manifest first principles, to make them evident.
page 93: 'Perhapds agent intellect is to be given the function of a subconscious effort o ordering the phantasms to bring about the right schematic image that releases the flash of understanding: . . ..
[page 187]
We see how to do something; say something.
Lonergan page 94: 'Like the possible intellect [memory], the agent intellect is separable, impassible, unconfused with matter; but as well it is of its nature ever in act.' What can this mean in information processing terms? [the world is built on pure act creating fixed points within itself]
page 95: 'In particular there is the relevance of intellectual light to the critical problem, for it is by the intellectual light that we can get beyond true relativity to immutable truth and we can discern appearance from reality [of course appearance is part of reality, possibly the most important part, if we reflect on the nature of the Church, a monstrous appearance with very little foundation in reality].
Aquinas: 'Requiritur enim lumen intellectus agentis per quod immutabiliter veritatem in rebus mutabilibus cognoscamus, et discernamus ipsas res a similitudinibus rerum.'
page 100: '. . . the stuff of which the author of the Universe and of our minds consists,' Fully locked onto the spiritual soul.
