Ākāśic motives
«(...) he reached the final conclusion that dreams are entirely and completely messages sent to us by the Dreamer to indicate fundamental truths about ourselves (which we may ignore or not as we wish)»
– A brief description of La Clef des Songes, by A. Grothendieck,
https://webusers.imj-prg.fr/~leila.schneps/grothendieckcircle/Clefsummary.pdf
I.
Seagulls have returned
(19.03.18)
Today is a beautiful day, with a bright blue sky, no clouds, almost no wind, and an intense sunlight. Half of the Silver Lake is unfrozen.
When I walked today to the Dreamstitute, I saw seagulls flying in circles and happily talking to each other, straight over my head. My first intuition was: they have returned for the spring. Winter is over.
I tend to believe that each physicist, and probably also each mathematician, has a little personal viXra inside their own mind, where they dump all the incomplete, partial, philosophical,... ideas, which they discover to their own amusement on the path of their life. Blogs turn out to be a good way to unleash some of the inner viXraity for the exchange purposes. nCat café can serve as a good working example of it (for those for whom nLab is too far stretched out).
Today, on a yoga session with Tārā, I’ve been looking into the tiny details of feelings with the trust, that the communication which I send into the world (semiotically modelled by my own physical body) is enough to become executable adequately, so I don’t have to force it to the level, at which I can be 100% sure of receiving an immediate response at the a priori preset scale. I think about the current writing as a model of such action.
The optimal learning seems to happen at 70–80% of an effort. I’ll then do my best to not overdo my best, avoiding hyperextension beyond this scale. It is interesting to see what it will bring.
The semiotics of relationships between mind and body, its possible mathematical models, and their relationship to such things as quantum field theories and quantum information theoretic relativity (with mathematical and physical concepts understood at least as the source of reliable systems of metaphors) is definitely something I will write about. Sooner or later...
Let’s see what will happen next.
II.
Last day of winter
(20.03.18)
I went out again from the Dreamstitute to meditate with the nature at the time of sunset. I’ve restarted evening meditations around two days ago, the day after the Deep Dive 3.0.
Today in the morning I went over the Lake, to see the birds and what’s new in their new home. I went into the building, – only after meeting myself with them, – for the full day of work, first after a long break. I was observing birds over the Lake through the windows of my office.
I slept three hours on the yoga mat under my desk in the middle of the afternoon. During that time I was brought back to some parts of my heart-mind connection, from the time before I zoned out into a separated mind, as a teenager and onwards. I was very shaken emotionally by this dream. It was touching my authentic self, from the times long forgotten.
I went outside the most western side of Dreamstitute’s building to see the late, purple-violet stages of the sunset. There were goose there, many of them. I looked around and cried, breathing very deeply and honestly. I saw a group of runners, and I reflected how strongly I do not reach out for the opportunities that are around me.
I am still lived by the dreams of a child, of a teenager. I’m dreamt by so many dreams. I was avoiding, as much as I could, the process of choosing, due to an attachment to understanding to what extent my choices can be arbitrary and naïve, while impacting the shifts of my ontology in the irreversible ways.
What if ‘having a choice’ refers to choosing between either an attachment to some uncontrollably restricted outcome or an attachment to some other uncontrollably restricted outcome? For a very long time I was not agreeing with the principle that I have to choose becoming bounded by some dreams for the sake of consistent emergence to happen. With this disagreement to perform a ritual sacrifice of the inner and outer potentials, there came both an empowerment and an isolation. What if the measure of intersubjectivity of one’s own model is the amount of quantitative full and faithful functors in terms of which one can represent the subcategories of this model onto some selected class of the intersubjective communication models? But then how to value the subjectively perceived amount of richness of the nonrepresentable kernel against the subjectively perceived amount of richness of the represented part? And what if the attachment to a particular representability is always at the expense of loosing the awareness of equiveridicality of alternative, collective and individual, dreams? At the end, it is always some deep truth that becomes sacrificed to establish the ‘unquestionable’ massiveness of intersubjective ‘reality’.
What if the dreams of sleep differ from the dreams of wake by the lower level of the quantitatively intersubjective coherence of the former, which is the price for, more free floating and deeper qualitatively, subjective experience of polymorphic underdeterminacy of self? The dreams of wake dream themselves through our acts, the dreams of sleep are dreamt through our inactivity.
Any form of emergent reality is based on sharing a dream, in which certain constructively determined channels of communication are presumed as safe/trusted by all sides, so all of agents use the part of their individually finite resources for compiling and running the particular shared code, and―as a result―partially participate in the resulting emergent space-time. Given any finite resource type theory, quantification procedures can be either constructive or approximative. Constructive ones determine what is known as facts (more generally: factoids), approximative ones determine states.
III.
First day of spring
(21.03.18)
Today with Comrade Mishatskiĭ we have dived deeply per pedes sovkolorum to the muddy bottoms of the Reserve, that we found keeping no reserves, except a lonely little creek at its centre – its true honest heart. There were semi-dry swamps, with almost no birds, as if all of them have had run away from this astral locus in the heart-bits of a memory leak.
I realised that diving into the Zone (в Зону, друг мой) is a very specific travel to a sacred place, the one that is made through the places of death, which can be completely irregular in time (with respect to one’s own standard daily multilayered time measures). So, the meanings gained by the traveller of those paths can be arbitrarily far astray from the default modes of thinking and perceiving, while still recognised as inherently exact, and thus―most probably―quite universally true (or, at least, neatly done, in a near-truth deceptive way). Upon returning, there is always a question: how much, what, and how to speak about it to others? Telling a particular story amounts to allowing for the embodiment of a particular system of meanings into oneself and oneself’s concept of an “external world” (serving as the referential basis for gauging subsequently re-renormalised actions/updated priors), and this establishes an attachment to the specific forms of light and shadow that the given system leads to emergence of. It is a large responsibility.
At around midnight Comrade Sūryatskiĭ is (maybe) going to come over. I (definitively) miss our conversations. In the meantime, let me offer a tentative conjecture: tantra to quantum field theory is the same as a classical guṇa system to homotopy-simplexified quantum mechanics. Within this frameset, classical (rāja) yoga can be seen as a general (quantum relativistic) information theory, the holy grail (of those of us who gave up on quantising gravity in favour of emerging space-times from quantum theory).
The power of analysis (from Descartes–Leibniz–Newton, through lagrangean and hamiltonian mechanics, nonlinear operators on Banach spaces, microlocal structure of singularities, and further on and on), lays in the art of effective approximation of infinitary relationships by means of a certain globally true bound, expressed in types that coarse it into finitary quantifications. In particular, diffeomorphisms give the space-times of general relativity a lot of inner cohesiveness, arithmetically controllable in a seemingly quite simple but algorithmically very powerful differential tensor algebra calculus. The lack of a structure deeper than germs of smooth functions (sufficient and necessary for solving partial differential equations) creates a lower bound for the complexity of an algebraic microstructure of this spatio-temporal framework. Whenever information theoretic foundations would introduce the n-ary (n-intersubjective) communication as an n-type, the question of the trade-off between algorithmic complexity and homotopical invariance of the landscape of post-postquantumn-intersubjective information theories will be faced.
Given a finiteness of some intersubjectively universal resource, understood as a basis for evaluation of (the possibility of) effective computation, algorithmic complexity stands behind the exact evaluation, and hence behind what can be asserted (constructed) as facts (or factoids), while the homotopic invariants stand behind approximative computability up to a certain order of exactness. The choice of the trade-off between them seems to govern the trade-off between whatever we would wish to call a deterministic ‘emergent’ spaces and their temporal dynamics (on the exact side of facts) and the generalised statistical (probabilistic, quantum, postquantum,...) inferences (on the approximative side), understood as morphisms of state spaces. When viewed from this perspective, it is tempting to speculate that the measure of an above trade-off is provided by an individual finitary resourcefulness (of awareness), which can be converted (sacrificed) either into an individual subjective temporality or for the purpose of emergence of some specific collective intersubjective temporality. Thus, the process of breakdown of a global hyperbolicity of a particular emergent space-time (e.g. in the Kerr space-time, happening under the external horizon, when approaching the inner horizon) would correspond to the loss of an effective intersubjectivity of the calculations/predictions within the boundaries set up by a given trade-off. More coarse statistical inferences, and thus more higher-order homotopical invariants, would still hold longer – for any finite amount of a universal computing resource – at the expense of less and less of fact(oid)s being constructible, due to the rise of their computing complexity. In other words, this amounts to execution of deconstructor of the intersubjective factoidal representability (spatio-temporal de-emergence), freeing individual user’s resources. In the limit, achieved at the inner horizon, one should expect a complete de-emergence of a space-time, which means that no intersubjective fact can be constructed in a finite time, no matter which renormalisation cut-off scale (complexity/homotopy trade-off) is chosen. Beyond this boundary, the geometry of information does not have any computable models. The world of magnets and miracles...
Waterloo, 19–21.III.2018