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 <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> 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
    everything-list@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
    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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to