On 11/8/2012 8:51 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
If the compact manifolds of string theory are all different and
distinct (as I claim in my paper from observations of a variable fine
structure constant across the universe), then the manifolds should
form a Stone space if each manifold instantly maps all the others into
itself, my (BEC physics) conjecture, but also a Buddhist belief-
Indra's Pearls.

Hi Richard,

There is a critical difference in my thinking. Strings exist *in* a space-time manifold, space-time is a substance external to them. In Monadology, space-time is not external to the monads nor is substantial, the relative differences in spatial ('where' type differences) and temporal ('when' type differences) define space-times (plural!) for monads. Monads have no windows and do not exchange substances. There is no Aristotelian 'substance' in monadology. The proposal I am studying is taking the view of monads seriously; a monad 'sees' other monads as disconnected points, thus many monads are 'seen' by any one monad as a dust and thus can be represented as a Stone space as per the Stone duality definition. The percept of the Stone space is first person, 1p, and is never 3p as there is no external observer that is not just another monad. The idea of a third person person view is just an abstraction; the idea of being able to shift from the point of view of one monad to that of any other in a continuous way. Every monad imagines that what it sees is 3p and it thus solipsistic. Andrew Soltau's multisolipsism is a detailed elaboration on this idea: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg19591.html What makes this duality interesting is that it shows us that there is a Boolean Algebra (BA) for each and every 'experience' and the evolution of a Boolean algebra is just another way of thinking of computations as thoughts or thoughts as computational. The flow of thoughts is represented as the transformation of one BA into another by, for example, changes in their respective propositions by the rule that whatever is allowed to be 'next' must be consistent with all previously allowed states. If we switch to the dual of thought flow we find the evolution of dusts: particles dancing in a void. There is no actual "outside space" for a BA, but we get the qualitative aspect of an 'outside space' coded in the Distinctioning action between pairs of monads. Add spin, mass and charge to the Stone space and we get physics! This proposal implies that there are quantities that are equivalently added to Boolean algebras, duals of mass, spin and charge. I suspect that these are defined in the internal relations between the propositions in any one BA.Joel Issacson, in his work on Recursive Distinctioning <http://www.isss.org/2001meet/2001paper/stegano.htm>, has found evidence even of the Baryon octet. But it remains to be proven that his RD is equivalent to the transformation of one BA into another. I think it is, but I can't prove this rigorously.

If so, youall may be working on implications of string theory- like

However, in my paper I claim that a 'leap of faith' is necessary to go
from incompleteness to consciousness (C). Would you agree? Bruno says
C emerges naturally from comp.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

On 11/8/2012 6:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Time and space don't exist as substances so
they don't influence the monads, which as you say
are eternal. Further, there is no "substance space".
So the monads are not organized in any way.
The monads can be thought of as a collection
of an infinite number of mathematical points.

>From dust we come and to dust we shall return.

Hi Roger,

     The absolute disconnection of the monads is what makes them a
'dust'. This is exactly what is a Stone space - the dual to a Boolean
algebra. ;-) The idea is that any one monad has as its image of other
monads the vision of a mathematical point. This fits the idea of that
the classical universe is "atoms in a void" as taught by Democritus.

     What Craig and I are proposing is to add time to this idea. The
evolution of the dust from one configuration to another is the arrow
of time. Switching to the dual, we see teh evolution of Boolean
algebras, whose arrow is the entailment of one state by all previous
states. These two arrows face in opposite directions

... A => A'     Stone space
     |       |
....A*<=A*'  Boolean algebra

     The duals aspects of each monad evolve in opposite directions.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:01:19
Subject: Re: Communicability

On 11/7/2012 11:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

That sounds like Leibniz. Each monad contains the
views of all of the other monads in order to see
the whole, not from just one perspective.

Hi Roger,

      Yes, and that is why I like the idea of a Monad. I just don't agree
with Leibniz' theory of how they are organized. Leibniz demanded that
their organization is imposed ab initio, he assumed that there is a
special beginning of time. I see the monads as eternal, never created
nor destroyed, and their mutual relationships are merely the
co-occurence of their perspectives. This makes God's creativity to be an
eternal action and not a special one time action.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 18:17:30
Subject: Re: Communicability

On 11/6/2012 11:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

What happens if I mistake a statue of a beautiful woman
for the real thing, thus turning, eg, a statue of pygmalion into an
actual woman ?

Or mistake fool's gold or gold foiled chocolates
for actual gold coins ?

Does the world actually become cloudy if I have cataracts ?

It is not just about you. It is about the huge number of observers. What
matters is that they can communicate with each other and mutually
confirm what is "real". Why do you imagine that only humans can be



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