On 5/20/2012 7:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I need to add a remark here. We cannot just assume one particular
4-manifold as the one we exist on/in. We have to consider the entire
ensemble of them to even ask coherent questions about the one we are in.
Why do you think cosmologists are so busy looking at such things as the
spectral distribution of the CMB and so forth? It is because those are
clues as to the specific type of 4-manifold that we are on/in.
Additionally, when we try to model the cosmology setting of many
observers and their observations we have to consider that each observer
has a ensemble of possible of 4-manifolds that represent the universe
that they observe.
On 5/20/2012 4:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/20/2012 1:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
My point is that for there to exist an a priori given string of
numbers that is equivalent our universe there must exist a
computation of the homomorphies between all possible 4-manifolds.
Because otherwise the amazing precision of the mathematical models
based on the assumption of, among other things, that physical systems
exist in space-time that is equivalent to a 4-manifold. The
mathematical reasoning involved is much like a hugeJenga tower
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga#Tallest_tower>; pull the wrong
piece out and it collapses.
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at