Nonesense.

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> Strings in string theory only exist on paper or a blackboard as a bunch of
> complicated equations for
> vibrations in hypothetical strings (loops I think) that coincidentally and
> miraculously model the
> actual behavior of various particles. It is a wonder in itself, but string
> theory is just that--theory.
> Not actual strings. Period.
>
> What more can I say ?
>
> I'm not going to answer any more questions along these lines.
>
>
>
> 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, 09:07:52
> *Subject:* Re: Re: A Correction: Strings and monads are somehow related
> but arenotexactly the same
>
>  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.
>
>  --
> 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