On 8/20/2012 11:36 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Wiki: Mereology has been axiomatized in various ways as applications of predicate logic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic> to formal ontology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_ontology>, of which mereology is an important part. A common element of such axiomatizations is the assumption, shared with inclusion, that the part-whole relation orders <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_order>its universe, meaning that everything is a part of itself (reflexivity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_relation>), that a part of a part of a whole is itself a part of that whole (transitivity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation>),

Richard: These assumptions apply to the Indra Pearl's of Chinese Buddhism and to Liebniz's monads. And more importantly superstring theory requires that tiny balls of 6-dmensional space exist which turn out to have the properties of reflexivity and transitivity, and therefore are candidates to be the pearls and monads.

Wiki: and that two distinct entities cannot each be a part of the other (antisymmetry <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisymmetric_relation>).

Richard: It seems that neither the pearls, or monads, and certainly not the CYMs have this property. So its strickly not mereology that applies to monads and the rest.

Hi Richard,

I agree with all with a small exception: I have a big problem with the superstring theory's use of a fixed background spacetime into which it embeds the compactified manifolds. It violates general covariance in doing this!



"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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to