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 Compactified 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.