On 8/23/2012 8:07 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephan,
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
Richard
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?
--
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.
