On 10/25/2012 2:21 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
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.
If the temporal dimension is compactified we get strange effect but no relativity.
Theories that require collective illusion are not attractive to me.
I see it as a choice between collective illusion or blind faith in substances. Naive realism is nice but ultimately stultifying for any explanation of mind.Searle's lectures here <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi7Va_4ekko&feature=relmfu> are a valiant attempt to defend naive realism. Figure it out for yourself. ;-)
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.
-- 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.
