So far it seems that a model of monads as enumerable as a Godelian
PA would work, but one would ahve to convert that into a complete
atomic Boolean algebraic form for it to fit neatly into the scheme that
I am using. What I am doing is exploring the idea first discussed by
Vaughan Pratt here http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf. It is
complicated... AFAIK it gives us a way to solve the pre-ordained harmony
problem of the monadology and thus also solving the mind-body problem
and the interaction problem in one fell swoop.
What is most attractive about this for me is that it also has some
deep implications that follow along Bruno's work, with a few caveats.
On 8/22/2012 12:20 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
That is very interesting. I have been using a model based on the
monads being enumrable
as in an abstract Godelian Peano Arithmetic. Do you have a particular
model in mind?
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Stephen P. King
<stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
This description assumes an embedding space-time that is
separable from the monads "in" it. One alternative is to work with
an abstract model of (closed under mutual inclusion) totally
disconnected compact spaces where the individual components of the
space are the images that a set of "mutually reflecting" monads
have. This allows us to use Greene's r -> 1/r duality and the
Stone duality as well. ;-)
On 8/22/2012 9:15 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The 10^500 possible windings of flux constraining the
are sufficient to populate some 10^120 universes with every monad
unique or distinct.
The CYMs are known to be discrete
and since the hyperfine constant varies across the universe
it is likely that the monads are distinct.
That this all comes from a subspace of ennumerable particles
to my mind satisfies Occum's Razor.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King
<stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
Nothing "in the theory" suggests that landscapes are a
problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use
meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories.
Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that
explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that
one needs to "match the data" or else it is not an
explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a
theory that has landscapes. Look!
"The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to
the large number of possible false vacua in string theory.
The "landscape" includes so many possible configurations that
some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the
standard model and general relativity with a positive
cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The
anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those
portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting
human life, an application of the anthropic principle that
selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations.
In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted
as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from
different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different
values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology
cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the
space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a
sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete,
being a version of the subset sum problem."
Boom, there it is! The computation problem!
On 8/22/2012 2:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem?
Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible
set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is
this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists
who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique
To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation
for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like
the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history,
despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist
<yann...@gmail.com <mailto:yann...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each
monad was distinct
consistent with the astronomical observations that the
varied monotonically across the universe.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King
On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.
Kovtum PK, Son DT & Starinets AO. Viscosity in
Strongly Interacting Quantum
Field Theories from Black Hole Physics.
Good! Now to see if there any any other possible
explanations that do not have the landscape problem...
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King
On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
String theory predicts the viscosity of the
already found at the LHC and several other sites.
Could you link some sources on this?
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P.
On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Neither CYM's nor strings physically
exist-- instead, they represent things
Anything in equation form is itself
nonphysical, although the equations
might describe something physical.
The equations of string theory describe
strings. So how does it follow that
strings aren't real. That's like saying
a sentence that describes my house shows
that my house isn't real.
I agree that string theory (or any other
theory) is a model of reality and not
reality itself. But, if it's correct, it
refers to reality or at least some part
of reality - like, "My house is green."
refers to a part of reality, but "My
house is blue." does not.
When and if string theory makes a
prediction that is then found to have a
physical demonstration we might be more
confident that it is useful as a physics
theory and not just an exercise in
beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is
looking for such evidence...
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
"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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at