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
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
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.
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
"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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at