Stephan, But you said that you liked my paper which was about how consciousness might arise from the Compact Manifolds if they are enumerable as astronomical observations suggest. Richard.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote: > On 10/25/2012 7:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >> Stephan, >> >> Since yesterday it occurred to me that you may be thinking of the 10 >> or more dimensions of string theory as being orthogonal because they >> were so before the big bang. But the dimensions that >> curled-up/compactified went out of orthogonality during the big bang >> according to Cumrun Vafa. I'll look up that reference if you are >> interested. >> >> According to Vafa 2 dimensions compactified for every single space >> dimension that inflated. In over simplified terms, 2 dimensions >> (actually in strips of some 10,000 Planck lengths) to be compactified >> lined up say in the east-west space dimension so that space in an >> orthogonal direction could expand. So some semblance of orthogonality >> exists in the compactification process, but it is clear that the >> compactified dimensions become embedded in 3D space for inflation to >> occur. >> >> Again from Vafa but a different reference, the hyper-EM flux that >> winds through the 500 topo holes in the resulting compactified >> particle (or crystalline element) is what constrains the particle from >> re-inflating. The manner in which the flux winds through each Compact >> Manifold (CM) particle apparently determines the laws and constants of >> physics and is the basis of the so-called string theory landscape >> >> As far as I know the hyper-EM constraining flux are not the strings >> that are the basis of physical particles like photons or electrons. >> But they may be related. I am admittedly just a (string-theory) >> systems analyst and not a string theorist. I take the word of >> theorists like Vafa and Yau at face value (whatever that means) for >> the properties of the CM particles. >> Other than reading the literature, my limited understanding comes from >> auditing one of Vafa's courses on string theory at Harvard as an >> alumnus. >> Richard >> >> > Hi Richard, > > How does Vafa explain the stability/instability of compactified > dimensions? My chief worry is that all of the stringy and loopy theories > assume a pre-existing continuum of space-time of some sort, the very > Aristotelian "substance" idea that Bruno's argument successfully attacks. > The assumption of primitive substances is very problematic as it does not > allow for any room for consciousness to occur or be causally effective. I do > like the idea of hyper-EM fluxes, but am not so sure that they are anything > more than fancy math, fiber bundles and sheaf transform groups on n-genus > topological manifolds and so on.... > Where are all of the sparticles and bosinos that are supposed to exist > if SUSY is correct? Occam's razor keeps me from believing in them... > > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > > -- > 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 > everything-list+unsubscr...@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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.