On 8/23/2012 8:07 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Thanks for the compliment.
I finally got someone with smarts to read it other than Chalmers and S_T Yau.

Dear Richard,

You are most welcome. I have learned to value the ideas of other people, simply because one can never know what one has missed in thinking about something. ;-)

Time inflates along with 3 dimensions in the big bang.
Leaving 6 dimensions behind to compactify or curl up
into tiny balls 1000 planck lengths across each with 500 holes.

So each 6-d ball is a fixed structure and 10^90/cc of them fill the universe.
Hardly a single structure.

But isn't the entire 10d structure a "single" object". It could embedded into a 11+ dimensional space and moved and rotated about, no?

Well I really cannot say how time works. Don't know if it is linear,or nonlinear, if it inflates or deflates. Most of string theory appears to threat time as part of a 4-D background spacetime. The paper has little to do with time. Perhaps it is required for Pratt theory?

I have thought about time a lot. It is the focus of my research, but I have had to deal with many related issues (such as the mind-body problem) to find a solution.

Pratt's theory gives us a way to think about time as a sequential ordering of events (consistent with Leibniz's ideas). Pratt's "residuation" process can even be thought of as a generator of temporal sequences (for each and every observer). I have found a way to model residuation using the idea of bisimulation which is an equivalence relation between computations and some Category theory. Time is thus understood as a local and first person process that can, via concurrency, become objective (3p via consensus of all bisimulating monads) and thus leading to the appearance of a dimension (since the sequencings allow for mapping to the positive Real Line in the continuum limit). One thing must be understood: to properly understand Pratt's theory we have to adopt a Heraclitian paradigm <http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/perspectives_on_science/v009/9.4pitt02.html> where becoming (as opposed to Being) is fundamental. The reasoning about time that I used was mostly developed by Prof. Hitoshi Kitada and discussed in his many papers: http://www.metasciences.ac/Articles/works.html


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    Dear Richard,

        Your paper <http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf> is very
    interesting. It reminds me a lot of Stephen Wolfram's cellular
    automaton theory. I only have one big problem with it. The 10d
    manifold would be a single fixed structure that, while conceivably
    capable of running the computations and/or implementing the Peano
    arithmetic, has a problem with the role of time in it. You might
    have a solution to this problem that I see that I did not deduce
    as I read your paper. How do you define time for your model?



"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