On 25 Oct 2012, at 15:06, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 10/25/2012 7:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

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

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

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

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.

Well, in defense of Craig, or of the devil, this has not been proved. The problem occurs, or at least is "easy" to prove only when we make the digital assumption. This entails a truncation of the subject, local and relative (its mind code) which by the MGA is incapable to distinguish the arithmetical from the real/analytical or substantial. If you introduce special (very special) infinities in both mind and matter, a non comp and materialist theory of mind an matter is not (yet) excluded. Also, the comp theory of consciousness makes it effective, even in the materialist framework. The only thing not effective is the notion of substance, and eventually (globally), of physics (that is highly counter-intuitive, but can be understood in the big 'non physical' picture, where we cannot 'add physics" and have to retrieve it from arithmetic and/or computer science.


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...



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to