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: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?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 <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.By your method, can you understand why in the GR analysis of a blackhole, the time dimension turns into the radial space dimension insidethe event horizon. That would seem to give time some credence as adimension.

`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: http://www.metasciences.ac/Articles/works.htmlRichard 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 http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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.