Hi guys,

Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things 
that exist.
Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations
might describe something physical.

For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house,
it is my address. 



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-20, 16:21:32
Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology


Stephan,


Well I agree the CYMs are a form of substance. But there are string theories 
where the background spacetime is flexible, to use a common term. So that is 
not a theory limitation.
The frozen block approximation allows for certain solutions that the flexible 
spacetime inhibits.?


I do think the CYMs are flexible since according to string theorists they 
contain the the laws and constants of physics allowing for 10^500 different 
universes. That should cover every possibility.
Richard


On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

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> wrote:

On 8/20/2012 11:36 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Wiki:? Mereology has been axiomatized in various ways as applications 
of?predicate logic?o?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?ordersits universe, meaning that 
everything is a part of itself (reflexivity), 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.


?iki: and that two distinct entities cannot each be a part of the other 
(antisymmetry).


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.
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.



-- 
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.



-- 
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.

-- 
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