Craig & Roger,
Here is a possible middle ground. Just like quantum waves may be
virtual and not physical,
dimensions may be virtual, including the multiple dimensions of string
theory. So the particles of compactified dimensions would be virtual
and spacetime would be virtual as well.
Spacetime still is part of reality just as virtual particles created
at the Planck scale must exist. But spacetime is more like wave
functions than physical particles. In fact in Bohm theory both quantum
probability waves the elementary particles and in GR warped spacetime
guide ponderable bodies.
I think of quantum waves or states as belonging in the mind of god, so
to speak, along with virtual Planck-scale particles, CYM monads, and
now presumably, spacetime. I am willing to admit that spacetime does
not have physical existence, nor do any multiple dimensions.
But I extend this thinking to multiple worlds. IMO MWI exists in the
mind of god and only 1p is physical, as following Leibniz, god chooses
the best possible world from all the quantum possibilities.
However, I believe that god is the collective nature of the CYM
monads, which following Godel and perhaps comp, manifests
consciousness and I believe makes the choice of what quantum state
becomes physical in every interaction.of physical particles.
According to string theory, the CYMs contain the laws and constants of
physics, ie., they are omnipotent. I conjecture that they are as well
omniscient based on Green's 2-d solution that each CYM maps the entire
universe, just like the monads of Leibniz and Indra's Pearls. The CYMs
are of course omnipresent since they fill the universe.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:26:03 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>> I think Roger has an incorrect interpretation the physics of Leibniz
>> and Einstein.
> I'm not sure. Spacetime can be warped, just as the cost of living can
> 'rise'. If Einstein understands that spacetime is the relation between
> objects and nothing more, then it would make sense that he also understands
> that by curvature or warping he means only the warping of the paths which
> objects take.
> I am going to try to read his original manuscript:
> http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf so far I
> find no mention of 'warp' or 'curvature'.
>> I also think this discussion has reached beyond diminishing returns.
> See, that's the thing, I could talk about this stuff forever. I used to have
> the conventional view of spacetime, but the more people I talk to, and the
> more knoweldgeable they are, the more I can see clearly that their basis for
> disagreeing with me is purely out of dread, and not out of any particular
> counterfactual scientific observation or understanding that they have. I am
> considering offering $1000 to the first person who can explain to me in a
> way that I can agree with why my conjecture is wrong.
>> I will stick with the conventional definition of space and time.
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
>> > On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:03:15 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>> >> Roger: So neither space and time nor spacetime
>> >> physically exist.
>> >> Richard: That is unscientific. Physics could be entirely wrong.
>> >> But I will bet on physics being correct and you and Craig being
>> >> incorrect.
>> >> But you are entitled to your opinion however absolute you make it sound
>> >> like.
>> > Craig: If we are right, then it is the Physics of Leibniz and Einstein
>> > (and
>> > probably others...Bohm?) are correct. Why does your interpretation speak
>> > for
>> > Physics but these others do not?
>> > Try this. Imagine universe with nothing but a ping pong ball in a
>> > vacuum.
>> > There really is no 'space' there. Without some other object to provide a
>> > frame of reference, there is literally no way to conceptualize a
>> > difference
>> > between one 'place' to be and another. No direction to face. Space is
>> > all
>> > information entropy. The lack of signal for us to make sense out of. It
>> > is
>> > nothing but the inferred gap between one participant and another in the
>> > particular visual-tactile-acoustic sense modalities of the participants
>> > subjectivity.
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > Groups
>> > "Everything List" group.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/5hdLUQVMIcAJ.
>> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> 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
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at