On 8/20/2012 1:40 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Hi Stephan,
I do not think that string theory requires a fixed background.
Otherwise string theory could not be a prospective ToE.
Richard
Hi Richard,
I had the very same reaction, but research it for yourself. Look at
the literature, the trick is the use of fiber bundles which require a
base space. They get away with it because they are using the entire
space-time manifold (like the frozen ice block idea) as the base space,
so it appears to be OK. But this leads to the landscape problem because
they have to consider the theory of all possible space-time manifolds.
The fundamental problem that I see with the entire exercise is the
assumption of primitive matter (here in the form of primitive space-time
manifolds that are fibered with a plenum of orbifolds), the very same
problem that Bruno is pointing out. The entire idea that "substance is
fundamental" needs to be re-evaluated and seen as just a basis of
observation and not something ontologically a priori.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Stephen P. King
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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!
--
Onward!
Stephen
"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 protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:everything-list%[email protected]>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
Onward!
Stephen
"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 protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
