On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> 
> wrote:
>> On 11/8/2012 10:04 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>>     OK, but then you are thinking in terms that are different from the
>> formal models that are in the literature. You will have to define all of the
>> terms, if they are different. For example. How is the property of
>> compactness defined in your idea? Why are the Calabi-Yau manifolds are
>> topological objects that are part of a wide class of "minimal surfaces".
>> There is a huge zoo of these in topology. See
>> http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Calabi-Yau_manifold
>>
>
> According to Cumrun Vafa spacetime emerges from the compactification process.
> However after a few hours attempting to find any theory of the
> compactification process,
> not even where Vafa says that two dimensions must compactify for one
> to inflate, which is kind of a oxymoron, I have to give up.

I just found a review article on Compactified String
Theories-http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2795v1.pdf that appears to be
relevant
plus an earlier paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.1982v1.pdf
that constructs specific Calabi-Yau compact manifolds.

But neither address the compactification process
in relation to space inflation.
Richard


>
>
>
>>>   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.
>>
>>
>>     If you have a proposal that explains how space-time emerges from the
>> CMs, cool, but you have to explain it to us and answer our question. One
>> question that I have is: What fundamental process within the compact
>> manifolds enables them to generate the appearance of space-time. I think
>> that you are assuming a substantiabalist hypothesis; that substance is
>> ontologically primitive. There is a long history of this idea, which is by
>> the way, the idea that Bruno and others -including me- are arguing against.
>> This article covers the debate well:
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
>
> I agree that the compact manifolds are substantive.
> You and Bruno IMO are arguing that something can come from nothing.
> I contend that the arithmetic must come from something substantive.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>     Why? What is acting to distinguish the CMs externally? You seem to
>> assume an external observer or consciousness or some other means to overcome
>> to problem of the identity of indiscernibles.
>
> My argument is based on empirical observation that the fine structure
> varies monotonically from north to south in an earth perspective
> across the universe. That could only be true if the monads were
> variable since the constants and laws of physics are properties of the
> compact manifolds/monads.
>
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible/ I think that your
>> idea is not that much different from that of Roger and mine. I just would
>> like to better understand some of your assumptions. You seem to have some
>> unstated assumptions, we all do. Having these discussions is a good way of
>> teasing them out, but we have to be willing to consider our own ideas
>> critically and not be too emotionally wed to them.
>>
>>>   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",
>>
>>
>>     No, actually. Real numbers are not Stone spaces. P-adic numbers, OTOH,
>> are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totally_disconnected_space#Examples
>
> If so, you should rewrite those wikis.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> I contend
>>> that your monads as well as mine must be enumerable-that is all
>>> different and distinct.
>>
>>
>>     Yes, they would be, but the idea that they are distinct cannot just be
>> assumed to exist without some means for the information of that partitioning
>> of the aggregate comes to be knowable.
>
> Covered in a previous comment above.
>
>>One thing that consciousness does is
>> that it distinguishes things from each other. Maybe we are putting in the
>> activity of consciousness into our explanations at the start!
>
> Maybe the property of distinguishability of consciousness stems from
> distinguishable monads
>>
>>>
>>> I apologize for using wiki. But I confess that what it says is the
>>> limit of my understanding.
>>
>>
>>     I love Wiki, but I prefer other references if they can be found. It
>> helps people to get a better idea of what is being discussed if they wish to
>> drill down into the complicated ideas that we discuss here in the Everything
>> List.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>     A dust is more simple - has less structure to be explained than an
>> array. We can add structure to a dust to get an array, but we can get lots
>> of other things as well. We need to be able to get smooth fields in some
>> limit. Can an array do this?
>>
>>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to