Hi Roger,

I agree in spirit with you but cringe at the use of the word "filled". Do you have any ideas as to the mereological relation between monads?

On 8/23/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard,
There are an infinite number of different monads, since
the world is filled with them and each is a
different perspective on the whole of the rest.
Not only that, but they keep changing, as
all life does.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
8/23/2012
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 <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>
    *Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
    *Time:* 2012-08-22, 11:24:16
    *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best
    mereology

        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>
        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 <mailto:yann...@gmail.com>
            *Receiver:* everything-list
            <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
            *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
            <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.
                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
                <stephe...@charter.net
                <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.

                        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, rclo...@verizon.net
                        <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
                        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 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