On Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:09:12 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
> 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.
Yes, all of those things are virtual. They have no independent existence,
rather we can make sense of things better if we imagine the universe as-if
> Spacetime still is part of reality just as virtual particles created
> at the Planck scale must exist.
Nothing virtual exists. That's what makes it virtual. It's a conceptual
placeholder. For what? For sense experience. Subjective phenomenology makes
the entire cosmos - literally in many cases - go 'round.
> But spacetime is more like wave
> functions than physical particles.
It's the measurement of spacetime that is like wave functions. They are
sensory ranges of whatever source and targets are the participating
> In fact in Bohm theory both quantum
> probability waves the elementary particles and in GR warped spacetime
> guide ponderable bodies.
I tend to think that elementary particles are more concretely real than
quantum, but they too will pick sides in a double slit test, so the
concreteness of physics I think scales down in quality in proportion to
physical scale (at least relative to our own scale). Quantum is 100%
dependent upon the measuring instruments. Atoms, maybe are only 70%
dependent. Molecules, maybe 10% dependent. Sheer speculation obviously, but
see if you can get where I am going: a sliding scale or continuum of public
realism which is inversely proportional to interiority or private
phenomenology. This is at the core of what I am talking about with
Multisense Realism. It's all one big/small public/private internal/external
involuted-ambiguous/discrete-irreversible semiotic relativistic continuum
> 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.
I would say that all of us choose what we hope is the best possible next
step in our own personal narrative. That sense is what collapses the
(virtual) wavefunction and prevents MWI. What is to prevent MWI from
repeating itself? Instead of one universe per dust speck wobble, why not an
infinite set of the same universe? Who is keeping track and who is
enforcing a law of non-redundancy? Somewhere, somehow, something has to
make sense of something, all we are debating is at what level. My position
is that level is already sensemaking. There is simply nothing whatsoever
that does not either experience sense or can be sensed by something that
does experience sense.
> 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.
I like monads and Indra's Pearls fine, as long as we realize that they are
us and our experiences of our lives.
> Enough preaching,
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg
> > On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:26:03 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
> >> Craig,
> >> 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
> > that by curvature or warping he means only the warping of the paths
> > objects take.
> > I am going to try to read his original manuscript:
> > http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf so far
> > 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
> > the conventional view of spacetime, but the more people I talk to, and
> > more knoweldgeable they are, the more I can see clearly that their basis
> > disagreeing with me is purely out of dread, and not out of any
> > counterfactual scientific observation or understanding that they have. I
> > considering offering $1000 to the first person who can explain to me in
> > way that I can agree with why my conjecture is wrong.
> > Craig
> >> I will stick with the conventional definition of space and time.
> >> Richard
> >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> >> like.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Craig: If we are right, then it is the Physics of Leibniz and
> >> > (and
> >> > probably others...Bohm?) are correct. Why does your interpretation
> >> > 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.
> >> > is
> >> > nothing but the inferred gap between one participant and another in
> >> > particular visual-tactile-acoustic sense modalities of the
> >> > 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
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Rg7yPltr2o8J.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > 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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at