Actually all string theories are based on an n dimensional manifold where n may be anywhere from 9 to 26 or more dimensions plus the assumption that all the dimensions but 3 compactify. I even think of time as a compactified dimension. Not sure if that's consistent with Relativity.
Theories that require collective illusion are not attractive to me. Richard On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote: > On 10/25/2012 12:31 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > 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. > > Hi Richard, > > Yes, I did say that and I still do. In the model that I am advocating, > there exists an infinite number of "monads" that have (in the math of the > model) a duality between totally disconnected compact Hausdorff topological > space (aka Stone space) and Boolean algebra aspects. It is a 'dual aspect" > ontology. > Minds, 1p, numbers, arithmetics and consciousness are elaborations on > the Boolean algebras. Your compact manifolds are included in the class of > topological spaces, thus they would be proto-conscious. The problem that I > have is that the string theoretical version of compact manifolds demands the > additional existence of a physical space-time manifold where as in my > proposal there is no need to postulate a space-time at all. > Space-time is a collective illusion emerging from the mutual consistency > of 1p content of the "monads". > > > > 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 > > > > -- > 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 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. -- 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.
