Thank God- just an expression. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Stephen P. King <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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: > > Stephen, > > 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. > Richard > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stephen P. King > <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hi Richard Ruquist >>> >>> What is the landscape problem ? >>> >>> >>> Roger Clough, [email protected] >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> >>> *Time:* 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 >>> *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best >>> mereology >>> >>> Stephan, >>> >>> 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. >>> Richard >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King <[email protected] >>> > 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. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 < >>>> [email protected]> 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 < >>>>> [email protected]> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Brent >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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, [email protected] >>>>>> 8/21/2012 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >> > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
