Shakespeare mangled by a Heideggerrian Google-translate. ;-)

That is funny!

]]>I don’t know. I am not a fan of the term, nor of the title and much other Heideggerism in Isham’s article. I do think there is something to be found in the topos over the poset of commutative subalgebras of an algebra of quantum observables, but I am not convinced of much of what Isham builds around this, the Heideggerisms included.

And I am not convinced of the technical definition of “daseinisation” either. At *Bohr topos* the section on observables points out that something way more elegant does the job of characterizing quantum observables topos-theoretically in terms of the Bohr topos: namely simply suitable geometric morphisms from the Bohr topos of the algebra of observables to the Bohr topos of functions on the real line.

These and the other results in Nuiten’s bachelor thesis make me think that the natural structure here is obtained by systematically regarding Bohr toposes as ringed topos incarnations of the phase space, and not get distracted by their internal logic too much.

Anyway.

When I hear “daseinisation”, a voice inside me always says:

Dasein oder nicht dasein, das ist die Frage.

Shakespeare mangled by a Heideggerrian Google-translate. ;-)

]]>Yes, Chris Isham in his “Topos theoretic foundations of physics” shows the tendency to be inspired by Heideggerian terminology.

Hmm, Dasein is human being, thrown into an existing world, a being whose horizon is defined by death, and whose authenticity relies on recognition of his finitude. Does Isham want to suggest this?

]]>I would also like the slides, if possible.

]]>Is this in honour of Heidegger?

Yes, Chris Isham in his “Topos theoretic foundations of physics” shows the tendency to be inspired by Heideggerian terminology.

I dare say John, Bruce and I might be able to reconstruct a chunk of it, but anyway, Bruce has got a copy of the pdf of the slides.

That would be nice to have! Thanks.

]]>Is this in honour of Heidegger?

My mind is still reeling from Witten’s talk at the Clay meeting. We got to see why from the perspective of Chern-Simons, the Jones Polynomial is a polynomial. It involved analytic continuation via complex connections, critical points, Lefschetz thimbles, the geometric Langlands correspondence, electromagnetic duality of a 4d qft with a special boundary condition yielding some elliptic equation with elliptic boundary condition.

I dare say John, Bruce and I might be able to reconstruct a chunk of it, but anyway, Bruce has got a copy of the pdf of the slides.

]]>brief entry “daseinisation”

(Note: I am not embracing the term, I just happen to want to record that somebody proposed it.)

]]>