Roger, Your Leibniz monads are not extended, but the monads of string theory are extended yet have most of the important properties of inextension. Richard
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Thank you, but monads are not extended in space, > they are mental and so inextended. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 10/26/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-10-26, 08:08:44 > Subject: Re: Re: Compact dimensions and orthogonality > > > No Roger, > > In string theory dimensions are conserved but can undergo extreme > modification such as in compactification where formerly orthogonal > dimensions become embedded in 3D space in spite of what Brent thinks. > However, the string theory monads that result from compactification > have many of the properties that you ascribe to unextended realms. > Because of BEC and instant mapping effects, the entire collection of > monads in the universe may behave as though the existed at a single > point despite being extended. > Richard > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard, >> >> Is there some way, such as reducing the dimensions of >> strings to zero, that one can transverse from the world >> of extension (the physical world) to that of inextended >> experience or theory? >> >> >> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >> 10/26/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> From: meekerdb >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-10-25, 14:23:04 >> Subject: Re: Compact dimensions and orthogonality >> >> >> On 10/25/2012 10:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: >>>> On 10/25/2012 11:52 AM, meekerdb wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/25/2012 4:58 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> It's implicit in the definition of dimensions of a Riemannian manifold that >>>> there are as many orthogonal directions as dimensions. Compactified >>>> dimensions are just small; they're small, not infinite, because they have >>>> closed topology. That property is completely independent of having >>>> orthogonal directions. >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>>> Dear Brent, >>>> >>>> Compactness and orthogonality are not the same quantities. Yes. But my >>>> point is that the compact structures in string theories (super or not) are >>>> orthogonal to the dimensions of space-time. Maybe we need all take a >>>> remedial math class on linear algebra and geometry! >>> I am still waiting for the explanation of how you know that to be true- >>> that the compact manifolds are orthogonal to space dimensions. >>> Richard >> >> If they weren't orthogonal then a vector on them could be represented by by >> a linear >> combinations of vectors in 3-space - and then they wouldn't provide the >> additional degrees >> of freedom to describe particles and fields. They'd just be part of 3-space. >> >> Brent >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
