Roger does not understand my argument that the monads of string theory are effectively inextended despite they being uniformly distributed throughout the universe at a density of 10^90/cc because each monad maps the entire universe instantly and they collectively form a BEC. In addition they collectively possess Peano cosmic consciousness so that there is no need for a supreme monad. Richard
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > You still don't understand inextended variables. Since 1p > is inextended (it involves consciousness), 1p has no size, > so it could include an infinite number of universes. > > > [Roger Clough], [[email protected]] > 12/5/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-03, 08:54:30 > Subject: Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. > > RC, > So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. > RR > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. >> The supreme monad sees all clearly. >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [[email protected]] >> 12/3/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> From: Richard Ruquist >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-12-03, 05:59:05 >> Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >> >> Roger, >> >> Isn't your god an observer? >> Richard >> >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. >>> >>> >>> [Roger Clough], [[email protected]] >>> 12/3/2012 >>> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >>> >>> >>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >>> From: meekerdb >>> Receiver: everything-list >>> Time: 2012-12-01, 18:00:16 >>> Subject: Re: Against Mechanism >>> >>> On 12/1/2012 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: >>>> >>>> Again there is nothing special about an observer in this, the same thing >>>> would happen if nobody looked at the film, or even if you used a brick >>>> wall >>>> instead of film, because the important thing is not that the photon >>>> makes >>>> a >>>> record (whatever that is) but simply that it is destroyed. >>>> >>>> >>>> > But you can do the experiment with electrons too, and the electrons >>>> > are >>>> > not destroyed. >>> >>> >>> Good point. If electrons are used in the two-split experiment a brick >>> wall >>> probably wouldn't do, you'd need a metal wall. Brick is a pretty good >>> insulator so you'd end up with 2 small negatively charged spots on the >>> wall >>> in slightly different places; >>> >>> >>> How would you get two charged spots? Would each have charge -e/2? The >>> experiment was originally done with photographic film, so that each >>> electron >>> ionized a silver halide atom resulting in a silver spot on the film. Now >>> it's usually down is some kind of detector that amplifies the effect of >>> each >>> electron. Neither one has anything to do with destroying the electron. >>> >>> the walls would not be the same and so the 2 universes would not be the >>> same >>> and so they would not merge. However if it was a metal wall the electrons >>> would just join the general sea of free electrons in the metal and there >>> is >>> no way even in theory to tell one electron from another. So the walls >>> would >>> have the same charge and mass. >>> >>> >>> But in an entangled electron pair experiment (EPR type) detecting the >>> path >>> of one electron destroys the interference pattern on the other leg. But >>> also just absorbing one electron destroys the interference on the other >>> leg. >>> To maintain the interference you have to absorb the electron at the focal >>> point of a lens so that you not only don't detect the which-way >>> information, >>> you erase it. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Everything List" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> 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 protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
