Hi Richard,

I am familiar with those idea and several others that are similar (such as that of Matti Pitkanen <http://matpitka.blogspot.com/>who I have had long discussions with). Yau and the others seem to retain the same ontological assumptions that modern physics has been using. My philosophical inquiry is exploring alternative ontologies that do not assume "primitive physicality" as fundamental. This has forced me to go back and dig up all of the prior work, such as Leibniz and Descartes, on ontology. It is ironic but the claimed rejection of philosophical implications and questions by modern physicist and their "shut up and calculate" attitudes have only deepened the problem that they face. Only recently, physicists like Chris Isham <http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/9210011> and Roger Penrose have had the timerity to broach the philosophical questions and have faced the problems squarely.

On 8/22/2012 12:34 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

According to Shing-Tung Yau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing-Tung_Yau
current Head of the Harvard Math Dept. who verified Calabi's Conjecture,
the compact manifolds are 1000 Planck lengths across
and are constraaned by higher-order EM flux that winds thru its 500 holes
(see "The Shape of Inner Space" by Yau).

It is considered that each flux winding has 10 quantum states
so that the total number of distinct windings is 10^500.

I suggest that the number of quantum states rather
may equal the dimensionality of the compact manifolds,
so that the number of possibilities is 6^500 or 10^389,
which is just enough to fill a good sized universe like ours
with every Compact Manifold being unique.

Thanks for your interest.

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

        What exactly determines the 10^500 number?

    On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
    That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads.
    Scientist believe that each possible universe
    contains but one kind of monad..

    On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough
    <rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>> wrote:

        Hi Richard Ruquist
        What is the landscape problem ?
        Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
        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 <mailto:yann...@gmail.com>
            *Receiver:* everything-list
            *Time:* 2012-08-21, 21:26:58
            *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and
            hopefully best mereology


            I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each
            monad was distinct
            consistent with the astronomical observations that the
            hyperfine constant�
            varied monotonically across the universe.

            On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King
            <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

                On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
                燬teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.�燼
                rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009.

                燢ovtum PK, Son DT & Starinets AO. Viscosity in
                Strongly Interacting Quantum
                Field Theories from Black Hole Physics.

                牋� 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
                <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

                    On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
                    String theory predicts the viscosity of the
                    quark-gluon plasma�
                    already found at the LHC and several other sites.

                    Hi Richard,

                    牋� Could you link some sources on this?

                    On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P.
                    King <stephe...@charter.net
                    <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

                        On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
                        On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
                        Hi guys,
                        Neither CYM's nor strings physically
                        exist--爄nstead, they represent things
                        that exist.
                        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.


                        牋� 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to