Hi Roger Clough, In Green's 2-D solution the monad is approximated as a circle, which is how say the east-west and the west east dimensions curl up on each otheto allow one east-west dimension to inflate in the big bang.
His supersymmetry string solution found that in each direction the outside of the circle was mapped in a r->1/r mapping to its interior so that the center of the circle integrated all information at r=infinity. I expect that someday the 3-D problem will be solved. Richard Ruquist On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > OK. That sounds basically right to me, except i don't understand the r--> > 1/r part. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 8/22/2012 > 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 <yann...@gmail.com> > *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > *Time:* 2012-08-22, 07:12:07 > *Subject:* Re: A Correction: Strings and monads are somehow related but > are notexactly the same > > String theory explains indirect monadic perception as the instantaneous > mapping of the entire universe outside the monad to its interior in a r-> > 1/r mapping, first derived by Brian Green in a two-dimensional > approximation. > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Hi Stephen P. King (and Richard) >> � >> That particles (strings) can "see" the universe the universe is different >> from monadic (indirect) 爌erception because monadic perception >> does not occur by photons, distances are not involved, >> and so is instantaneous.牋 Monadic perception is also somewhat >> imperfect (near-sighted and somewhat dim) in a practical sense, >> whereas photons transmit information slower but perfectly. >> � >> This is燼 difficulty of a type I feared but didn't resolve when I >> simply claimed that strings are monads. Obviously if the universe is >> made up entirely of strings and entirely of monads there is likely some >> corresponce燽etween the two, but爄t is not simply equivalence. >> � >> � >> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >> 8/22/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >> everything could function." >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> *From:* Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> >> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> *Time:* 2012-08-21, 08:11:08 >> *Subject:* Re: How Leibniz solved the mind-body problem >> >> On 8/21/2012 8:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >> Roger, >> >> According to string theory the爉onads do not "only see the external world >> through the eyes of the supreme monad >> (or CPU)". Rather爄n string theory爀ach individual, discrete, and distinct >> monad sees the entire universe instantly but without complete resolution. >> However integration of information allows for improved resolution. >> >> >> Hi Richard, >> >> 牋� This is the same thing that Roger and I are claiming. >> >> >> In string theory there is no supreme monad. Rather any such thing must be >> an intergrated or collective effect of many monads. Leibniz was not >> entirely correct. But he got the most important characteristic, that monads >> are so tiny as to be invisible. And that monads control the universe via >> the laws and constants of nature. >> >> >> 牋� The idea of the supreme is a figure of speech... We can approximate >> the supreme with limits... >> >> >> Also there is no evidence in string theory that monads come in 3 types. >> But the fact that string theory predicts the 3 generations of particles in >> the Standard Model, suggests that it's possible that monads come in 3 >> varieties. But those varieties would have had to be available in the >> primordial, uninflated set of 10 or more dimensions >> Richard >> >> >> 牋� Please read more detail on string theory, I hate to see you continue >> in such a mistake. :_( String theory is materialist nonsense. >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net>wrote: >> >>> Hi Stephen P. King >>> � >>> To Idealists, the "real" is the idea or concept of a thing, >>> The thing as it it appears to us is a phenomenon. >>> � >>> This inversion of common sense was made by Leibniz >>> in order to get rid of the mind-body problem. There's >>> no problem really if both are just concepts.燭hey don't >>> actually interact, but they can be conceived as interacting. >>> � >>> There is a爐ricky point, and is I think燼 principal reason why L can >>> be so confusing---- and critics have observed爐hat even Leibniz can >>> sometimes confuse the real with the phenomenal. >>> � >>> 1) First of all, Idealists such as Leibniz. Berkeley and Kant consider >>> IDEAS to be real, not the material or other phenomena they describe. >>> For these guys, the descriptions are real, not the things or phenomena >>> they describe, >>> which admittedly are transitory. >>> � >>> Which is NOT to say that to Leibniz, the world out there is a >>> hallucination. >>> No, it is just like it looks and he calls the world we see, >>> although phenomenal, "well-founded phenomena". >>> You can still stub your toe and feel pain,燽illiard balls will all >>> collide as >>> usual, etc. To all purposes, everything will seem normal. >>> � >>> 2) The monads can only see the external world through the eyes of the >>> supreme monad >>> (or CPU).� This is not direct sight,爁or one thing monads afre not spaced >>> in space or time >>> (perhaps heaven is like this ?). They don't really see the outside world, >>> they only see an infinite number of爋f mirrors, those being reflections >>> of the >>> monad in question from the [points of view of the other monads. >>> � >>> � >>> 爄n the mirrors or "perceptions" of >>> � >>> � >>> � >>> � >>> � >>> 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." >>> >> >> snip >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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. > -- 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.
