On 8/23/2012 11:00 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    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?

Not according to Yau" http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Calabi-Yau_manifold#Calabi-Yau_manifolds_in_string_theory

Dear Richard,

    Please let me cut and paste the relevant paragraph from that article:

"They require in particular that the theory takes place in a 10-dimensional space-time. To make contact with our 4-dimensional world, it is expected that the 10-dimensional space-time of string theory is locally the product M4×X of a 4-dimensional Minkowski space M3,1 with a 6-dimensional space X . The 6-dimensional space X would be tiny, which would explain why it has not been detected so far at the existing experimental energy levels. Each choice of the internal space X leads to a different effective theory on the 4-dimensional Minkowski space M3,1 , which should be the theory describing our world."

The M4 is what is commonly referred to as "space-time" in physics. The X is a manifold that is fibered onto each and every point of M4 using the fiber bundle method - standard differential topology stuff. The product of M4 and X is itself a topological space that can be embedded into a higher dimensional space and is subject to transformations on its own. This embedding is not assumed in string theory but it is mathematically possible (i.e. there does exist a 10d subspace of a 11d space that is identical to M4xX). Because of this my claim above stands. Prof. Kitada considered a kind product space-time as a different but equivalent possibility in his work and after some discussions agreed with me that this was problematic as it makes the problem of time impossible to solve. I will not do into the details of the reasoning here as it is long, but please re-think this. This paper discusses Prof. Kitada's reasoning: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9708055

    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
    where becoming (as opposed to Being) is fundamental.

By your method, can you understand why in the GR analysis of a black hole, the time dimension turns into the radial space dimension inside the event horizon. That would seem to give time some credence as a dimension.

Sure, I am familiar with this transformation (it is a fun exercise to map out the vectors of flows through event horizons that take this into account, it yields a pattern that looks exactly like the field lines of an electrical charge!) but the entire definition of the black hole assumes from the onset the dimensional representation of time. I don't disagree with the math as it is only a representation of an idea (made precisely and consistently), I am just asking you to think about where the sequence of events originates that is then mapped to the positive Real line that then (and only then) generates the notion of dimensional time. Time is not just a pre-ordered sequence! This realization was made stark by Leibniz' Pre-Established Harmony idea, where God, in his infinite wisdom, defined the "perfect" correlation of the internal aspects of all possible monads such that they where forever aligned with each other even though they never acted upon each other or caused each other to vary. Leibniz started off assuming an infinite number of solipsistic ("windowless") minds and postulated that God would make it so that their individual percepts would always be such that they always appeared to be correlated and thus generating the appearance of being physical beings in a single physical world with a single absolute space and time. Leibniz didn't see the computational complexity problems of his proposal but he did see the deep implications of tangent spaces in the 18th century! He just lacked the mathematical vocabulary to properly express himself. Ironically, even if he did know the right math, no one would have understood what the hell he was talking about... One thing about the mind that we need to understand is that it is not "in our head". Stated correctly our heads are in our minds as are our bodies and all other things that we perceive.

        The reasoning about time that I used was mostly developed by
    Prof. Hitoshi Kitada and discussed in his many papers:


    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?




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