Hi Stephen P. King 

If you can measure it, or potentially do so it's extended.
Mass. size, color, voltage, etc. Whatever physical
science deals with.

Science thus deals exclusively with extended objects.

If you can think of something, the thought (Where did i put that damn tie ?)  
is inextended,
although the (out-in-the=world) object of thought (an actual tie in the closet) 
is extended.

Note that the tie you thought of is inextended while being a thought,
but extended as a tie actually hanging in the closet.

Roger Clough, 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 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-23, 08:18:36
Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology

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
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 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-22, 11:19:29
Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology

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 

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> 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 theory? 

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> 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> wrote:

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. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. 

    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> 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> 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