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.
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
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
Not according to Yau"
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
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
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:
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at