On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote: > On 11/8/2012 8:51 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Stephan, > 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 compact manifolds, what I call string theory monads, are more fundamental than strings. Strings with spin, charge and mass, as well as spacetime, emerge from the compact manifolds, perhaps in the manner that you indicate below. The one difference from what you are considering and the compact manifolds (CMs) that I can see is that the CMs are fixed in the emergent space and not free floating- which in itself implies a spacetime manifold. Perhaps another is that from your discussion, it appears that all your monads can be identical, whereas the CMs are required to be different and distinct in order for consciousness to emerge from an arithmetic of real numbers. However since from wiki "Each Boolean algebra B has an associated topological space, denoted here S(B), called its Stone space" and "For any Boolean algebra B, S(B) is a compact totally disconnected Hausdorff space" and "Almost all spaces encountered in analysis are Hausdorff; most importantly, the real numbers", I contend that your monads as well as mine must be enumerable-that is all different and distinct. I apologize for using wiki. But I confess that what it says is the limit of my understanding. Any way what I propose is that all of what you say below may more or less be appropriate for the compact manifolds of string theory if we replace the dust with an array. Richard > 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://firstname.lastname@example.org/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, 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 > consciousness. > > 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. > Richard > > ---------- 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: email@example.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. > http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec1.html > > 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 > 11/8/2012 > "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 > 11/7/2012 > "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 > observers? > > > > > > -- > 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. > 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 email@example.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.