Hi Roger,

OK, we agree on this. The question then becomes how to explain the appearance of extension.

On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Monads could never be embedded in anything because they are inextended.
You as a person are inextended. Mind is inextended. Feelings are inextended.
Thoughts are inextended.
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:* Stephen P. King <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>
    *Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
    *Time:* 2012-08-22, 11:19:29
    *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best

    Hi Richard,

        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:
    Yes Stephan,
    The 10^500 possible windings of flux constraining the
    compactified dimensions
    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:

        Hi Jason,

            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
        as much.


        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
            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>>

                On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
                 Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.
                 arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009.

                 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
                <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,

                        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-- instead, 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.


                            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