Re: Russell's book + UD*/strings
Le 26-sept.-06, à 16:03, Russell Standish a écrit : I would say also that interpretations could be inconsistent, ? ? ? I guess you are using the word interpretation in some non standard way. It would help us, and you, if you could work on a glossary. but perhaps there is not much difference between interpretation and theory. Would you say There is a red flower is a theory, or merely an interpretation of an image? It could be a theory, ... then if you interpret the word red by the adjective green with its usual meaning, and the word flower by inhabitant of the planet mars, then the interpretation of there is a red flower is a correct theory with respect to realities where there are green inhabitant on Mars, and incorrect in the realities where there are no green inhabitant on Mars. In that sense there is a red flower can be seen as a theory. I assume here that there is is borrowed from a classical logic in the background. If it were possible to view the entire Nothing, ? it would be an inconsistent interpretation. However it is not so possible, and indeed it may be true that it is impossible to have an inconsistent interpretation (I do not assert this however). I think it would be helpful to use the standard meaning of those term, or at least, to define them precisely if you use them in some other sense. Indeed - however we do have a difference in emphasis. Yours is towards more formal models, but with obscure modeling relations, My emphasis is on machine which are formal by construction, and the obscure modeling relation are old and new theorems in mathematical logic. It is just applied mathematics. The modelling relations are strange and mysterious, but this is just because Godel and Lob theorems are somehow themselves strange and mysterious. But is this 1-3 distinction implicit within your statement of COMP? I'm not sure that it is. I think it is, and the following quote makes me thing you believe this too, at least in the quantum framework, when you say: Collapse is conceived of as a physical process, and as such is problematic. Nonphysical collapse is just the 1 POV of the Multiverse. That's all I'm talking about. It is not new, it underlies all of Chapter 2 of my book, and also of Why Occams Razor. Perhaps I'm guilty of assuming it without explicitly stating it, but by way of challenge can you give me a piece of knowledge that doesn't come in the form of a string? Knowledge comes from third person finite strings, with a measure determined by *some* infinite strings (the non halting immaterial computations) generating them. It is certainly hard, given we live on the opposite sides of a digital world - a record of a telephone conversation we have will be a a string of bits, as will any emails we use, any my book left my hands in the form of a string of bits and so on. OK, but that are finite strings conceived and manipulated (by your computer and your brain with some high level comp assumption) as numbers. Most test editor manipulate a structure of finite strings together with a concatenation or substitution structure. Again this is infinitely richer that your set of all infinite strings. I use the usual one (excluded middle), and I don't use any infinity axiom that I'm aware of. Now I am very confused. I thought you were assuming infinite strings. A glossary would really help, I am not sure you are not changing the meaning of your term from paragraph to paragraph. Yes - I appreciate the ontological difference. I would say that only Nothing exists (in ontological meaning). Strings and sets of strings only exist in the same sense that the number 1 exists. This contradict the definition of Nothing you gave us. I could elaborate a lot about the vagueness of the notion of finding something in the UD* (the infinite complete running of the UD). I could ask finding by who?, from inside? from the terrestrial (verifiable) view or the divine one (true but non verifiable)?, from which x-person point of view? Etc. Given that the UD cannot not dovetail on all the reals, there is a sense in saying all the infinite strings are generated, but this gives a noisy background first person machine have to live with. The UD is not equivalent with all infinite strings, the UD* is a static given of all computations. Those computations can be represented by very peculiar finite and infinite strings together with a non trivial structure inherited from computer science/number theory. About the only difference I see is that the measure might be different... And that *is* the key issue, I think. I more or less always assumed this. Either COMP is more specialised (you can derive some my postulates from COMP, and others are compatible with it), or COMP is the only way of deriving these same postulates, or COMP in some way contradicts these postulates. As you admit yourself there is a lot of work to get enough precision in
Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia
Marc. (to your remark to Bruno: I don't like string theory either, consider it a sweated out reductionist sci-fi which has been worked through by excellent mathematicians so far that by now it looks like the panacea for high science. This is an opinion, I did not study Str-Th to understand (believe?) it retrogradely - meaning to accept the starting sci-fi idea impressed by the mathematical 'matches' it was supported by later on. This remark of mine will be deemed VERY 'unscientific', but you opened the way to liking.) To the 'incomprehensible' absolutes: It starts with what we would deem 'comprehensible' (not humanly only, of course) - it is difficult, because to 'comprehend' carries a (human?) mental activity in its semantics for 'understanding in its main features at least. As: to put it into OUR reductionist models. Now: widen this meaning into to anything (as you wrote: ANY mind?) [you must have a good identification for mind. May I ask for it?] comes back to the problem of 'comprehend' (understand?) and its object(s). I feel (again this personalized vagueness!) it refers to information in its more common sense meaning. (I could not get past the 'bit'-s meaninglessness: a bit can refer (belong) to anything). I boiled down the 'information' term to 'acknowledged difference' generalizing it to by anything (I refrained to call it 'mind', because features we do not deem mindful, (rather 'physical objects') also acknowledge i.e. absorb into their structure the impacted differences from other entities. A difference is only information when it is acknowledged (mentally OR physically). In my opinion (and by Colin's argument I cannot start with anything else in my private (scientific? theoretical? reality? my solipsism) the entirety is deterministic in the sense that everything is entailed by some originating factor. So 'occurring' means information (i.e. acceptance) from the originator (process?) which cannot occur without some sort of comprehension - within human bounds or not to put it into place (action?). This is why I was startled by the 'absolute incomprehensible' in wider sense than just humanly. Sorry for this convoluted explanation: my 'mind' works with differently formed (in-formed?) ceptual ways than applicable for the math-physx based 'scientists' in THEIR solipsism. It is a shame that you and me have to tackle these things when my original idea was that the (logical?) ways of yours are palatable to me. John M - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 8:29 PM Subject: Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia Smolin's loop quantum gravity is the physics of the soul which has not yet fallen (!). String theory, or better the string theories landscape (as described by Smolin himself) would describe ... the gate of hell, or the state of the fallen soul: the fourth hypostase Very funny. So... I take it you don't like String Theory and think loop quantum gravity is the way the truth and the light? ;) But the point here is that timelessness critics are again generated by an internal first person plural view, and to make it ontic would be a nth instantiation of Aristotle fundamental mistake of reifying time, space and matter, despite the beauty feature of loop gravity that time, space, and particles are fundamentally emergent Bruno I'm prepared to believe that space and particles are not fundamental but are emergent. However Bruno, I'm not yet convinced the same is true for time. I don't see how time can be removed from our descriptions of reality. I'll read the things you mention at some point. We may concentrate on the part humanly comprehensible, but in the wholistic view we cannot make it a substantial part of the existence. John M Of course. I certainly didn't man to restrict the conception of reality to reality which was only comprehensible to humans. Just to clarify: when I said that 'eXistenZ' was 'comprehensible reality' I didn't mean 'comprehensible to humans' I meant 'comprehensible to SOME mind' (which may be much greater than human). ie. Comprehensible in principle. Reality which is 'Comprehensible in principle' is of course much greater than reality which is 'Comprehensible only to humans'. By 'Incomprehensible' I meant the parts of reality which would be incomprehensible to ANY mind, even in principle. As for the vagueness of the definitions for Energy, Volition and Information you are quite right! But this was exactly my point: these three concepts apparently cannot be directly defined, only referenced by their effects or 'potential'. They appear to be incomprehensible concepts (incomprehensible to ALL minds, humans or not). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this
Re: Barbour's mistake: An alternative to a timless Platonia
Le 29-sept.-06, à 02:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :[+ comment to John below] Smolin's loop quantum gravity is the physics of the soul which has not yet fallen (!). String theory, or better the string theories landscape (as described by Smolin himself) would describe ... the gate of hell, or the state of the fallen soul: the fourth hypostase Very funny. So... I take it you don't like String Theory and think loop quantum gravity is the way the truth and the light? ;) Well, you should not infer this from the fact that I suspect string theories appears with the 4th hypostases, given that I am rather proud of having isolated them. If you look to Conscience and Mecanisme and to the Lille thesis you will see that at that time I was (wrongly) believing that physics could not occur but in the 4th and 5th hypostases. I thought that S4Grz1 collapses. Since then I have been able to prove that the 3rd hypostase does not collapse (under the comp restriction) but that they already defines an arithmetical quantization (that is: proves the main physical modal formulas: p - BDp and Bp - p), and I still don't know if this is a good new, except that it shows that the pure first person (the soul) has already a foot in Matter. But that soul's physics is like a pure physics completely detached of any background dependence, and at first sight it is a good place for something resembling Loop Quantum Gravity. The fourth and fifth hypostases, nevertheless, gives the only physical modalities which split through the G/G* distinction so that only them can be used for relating the non communicable qualia with the sharable quanta. Also they predicts many many exotical geographies, and currently, through the Moonshine Mystery + modular speculations, are closer to the strings theories. To be sure the experimental physicist in me (if there is any) has no competence for judging Loop versus String arguments. On the contrary, the many hypostatic nuances forced by the quantization of incompleteness (defined by the p- BDp + inverse Goldblatt transform) makes me willing to believe that both Loops and Strings are correct, but does not address the same problem. But the point here is that timelessness critics are again generated by an internal first person plural view, and to make it ontic would be a nth instantiation of Aristotle fundamental mistake of reifying time, space and matter, despite the beauty feature of loop gravity that time, space, and particles are fundamentally emergent Bruno I'm prepared to believe that space and particles are not fundamental but are emergent. However Bruno, I'm not yet convinced the same is true for time. I don't see how time can be removed from our descriptions of reality. I'll read the things you mention at some point. This is a bit weird because there has always been a tradition since Pythagoras, Plato, ..., Einstein, ... to consider that time is not part of the ontology (except under the form of arithmetical induction axioms (which I already put in the epistemology)). In general people are more shocked when I say that comp force space to be emergent than when I say that time is emergent. Note also that I don't remove time from the description of reality, I remove time from reality, if only because I recover time in the description of reality possible for the self-introspecting machine. (Mark, let me take your quoting of John Mikes as an opportunity to repeat a key point . We may concentrate on the part humanly comprehensible, but in the wholistic view we cannot make it a substantial part of the existence. John M John, I have already said this, but it is short and important so let me repeat: let us concentrate on machine or number comprehensibility, instead of humans' one. Assuming comp, this is substantially larger than human's comprehensibility, and still not trivial thanks to incompleteness. Also, the more I walk in number theory, the harder it is for me to imagine a better wholistic view of a reality where anything is connected to anything in a lot of surprising and unexpected ways. And incompleteness protects numbers against any totalitarian theory pretending to unify the truth about them. Numbers can see their limitations, they can find holes in their views, and they can see better through those holes. Numbers are saying you are right, but you seem not to listen, due to your human prejudice against them. I let you chose if that is sad or comical. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: The problem is that cells are defined and understood only through being observed with our phenomenal consciousness. Not only. Cognition and instrumentation are needed too. Yes. But the instruments are observed. All the instruments do is extend the causal chain between your phenomenality and the observed phenomena. Provided you can justify the causal source...all is OK... but that's part of the critical argument process using existing knowledge. The observer is fundamentally in the causal chain from the deepest levels all the way through all of the instrumentation and into the sensory systems of the observer. The observer is part of every observation. Hmmm. Are you sure? Is an earthbound astronomer fundamentally part of a supernovca which exploded millionsof years ago ? What do you mean by fundamentally ? Yes. Causal chains, no matter how improbable, executed at the tiniest of scales the same ones that make LUCY our literal ancestor. connect us. It depends what you , mean by connect. I am connected to these things, but they can manage without me. It is a one-way kind of connection. Consider them entropy transactions. When you objectify it, formalise it and it looks (is equivalent to) 'light cone' causal proximity, but that's only how it appearas. Causal chains all the way from the sub-sub-quark level, all the way out of the experiment, up through the instruments, across the room, into your eye, action potentials along nerves and then the neuron(s) that deliver the qualia... observation. Consciousness is not a 'high level' emergent property of massive numbers of neurons in a cortex context. It is a fundamental property of matter that single excitable cells make good use of that is automatically assembled along with assembling cells in certain ways. There are a number of leaps there. from basal areas to single neurons, for instance. When you look at the imaging it's very small cohorts of neurons. They look identical to other sorts of neuron cohorts nearby. One set delivers qualia. The others do not. How do you know ? So there are 2 parts to an explanation: a) single neuron properties b) cohort organisation Unless thesre is a property of single neurons to use for a cohort to do something with, you are attributing 'magical emergence' to a cohort. This is a logical inevitability. y-e-e-s. But where are you without emergence ? Qualia would then be properties of quarks. Wihich brings on a Grain problem with a vengeance. Magical emergence means attributing some sort of property inherent in organisation itself. The point of emergence is rather that the property is *not* inherent in the lower-level parts and realtions. This leads to logical nonsense in other considerations of organisation (eg sentient plumbing in Beijing). That leaves us with a property of excitable cells which can a) be optionally established by a single cell then b) be used to collective effect (including cancellation/nullification) A phenomenal property of a single cell would be emergent relative to the molecular/atomic level. At this stage I don;t know which option does the priordial emptions. What I do know is that without single cell expression of a kind of 'elemental-quale' you can't make qualia. Crick and Koch also attributed qualia to small cohorts or possibly single cells (but in cortical material in 2003). No we have moved it out of the cortext, the arrow is pointing towards single cells... and what do you know? they are all different - 'excitable' = electromagnetic behaviour. We have a fairly large pointer which says this is a single cell electromagnetic phenomenon as like a pixel in a qualia picture. colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] COL Yes. Causal chains, no matter how improbable, executed at the tiniest of scales the same ones that make LUCY our literal ancestor. connect us. LZ It depends what you , mean by connect. I am connected to these things, but they can manage without me. It is a one-way kind of connection. COL We are touching on the unidirectionality of time, here. Specifically the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Myriad infinitesimal entropy transactions resulting in overall increases in disorder but localised increases in order ( complexity , russel's playground) where net energy inflow exists - such as where we are in the beam of the floodlight called sol. If you mean the current state is the sum of the transactions of the entire history of the transactions comprising you... then yes, your present state is connected to all this causal history. The thing is that you literally _are_ it. You are not like some bulldozed pile of independent stuff. So the idea that you and the causality that got you to your current state are separate is meaningless. You literally are causality - intrinsically made of change, but change that results in persistent structure that is you. So. yes. The model I am working with is untrinsically unidirectional, I suppose - one way in a flow sense and one way in a causal sense that the present (current state) did not 'cause' the past (previous states), nor can the future cause the present state. The easiest way to imagine it is to think of it as computation. Go through the sequence of operations 2+5=7. The 'present' is the state of the computation as is progresses (load, 2, load 5 add, display result, for example). The 7 did not cause a 2 and 5 to be added. Similarly 7's participation in a future computation cannot be said to have caused the 7. I know we can _imagine_ realms where bidirectional causality may be so. These are best represented in our formal mathemtical depictions of our world that have t in them, t for time). What I am saying is that the realm we are in is not like them. This is the one _we_ inhabit, with particular instances of particular kinds of things going on. Or perhaps a little more generally - the one we inhabit is currently in a state where unidirectional causality (albeit intrinsically randomised in selecttion of particular outcomes) rules. A really good book on this is 'The end of certainty' by Prigogine. COL identical to other sorts of neuron cohorts nearby. One set delivers qualia. The others do not. LZ How do you know ? COL Human verbal reports in a very detailed experimental regime. This was done by imaging humans and controlling for various physiological circumstances to eliminate the cohorts involved in things like (in the case of thirst) the 'mouth-dryness' factor and micturition state. When you control everything you end up being able to isolate one specific, unique region that is correlated only with the experienced emotion of 'thirst' (reasulting in an 'imperious desire' for drinking behaviour). The imaging results are in the book. The interesting thing in the case of these low level emotions is that they are all separate cohorts (thirst, hunger, sex drive etc). It's not one cohort that changes in subjective quality. There must be an evolutionary reason for this... maybe in DNA or maybe the emotions compete for behavioural dominance (micturition thwarting, for example, may stop you being afraid of something or vice versa) So there are 2 parts to an explanation: a) single neuron properties b) cohort organisation Unless thesre is a property of single neurons to use for a cohort to do something with, you are attributing 'magical emergence' to a cohort. This is a logical inevitability. LZ y-e-e-s. But where are you without emergence? Qualia would then be properties of quarks. Wihich brings on a Grain problem with a vengeance. COL There are no gaines to have a problem with. See below. COL Magical emergence means attributing some sort of property inherent in organisation itself. LZ The point of emergence is rather that the property is *not* inherent in the lower-level parts and relations. COL Yes, but these properties cannot exist without colligative actions of _something_. Like I said: LAKE is to H20 as REDness is to 'what?'. That is, what elemental property is dragged along with matter (atoms, molecules) that can result in it being 'like something' to be those atoms/molecules? Yes, you can say they are behaving in a specific way ...like neural cells doing the qualia dance but you are still stuck with not knowing the 'what?' shown above. This is only correlation/description , not causation/explanation. The real question is to ask yourself what are the innate circumstances in the universe that would mean doing the neural qualia dance be 'like something'? This fundamentally questions your view of the universe. That view is, in my model, that
Re: Russell's book + UD*/strings
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:46:20AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-sept.-06, à 16:03, Russell Standish a écrit : I would say also that interpretations could be inconsistent, ? ? ? I guess you are using the word interpretation in some non standard way. It would help us, and you, if you could work on a glossary. Interpretation of something means meaning an observer attaches to something. Is this nonstandard? I wouldn't have thought so. Indeed - however we do have a difference in emphasis. Yours is towards more formal models, but with obscure modeling relations, My emphasis is on machine which are formal by construction, and the obscure modeling relation are old and new theorems in mathematical logic. It is just applied mathematics. The modelling relations are strange and mysterious, but this is just because Godel and Lob theorems are somehow themselves strange and mysterious. But so are your postulates, for example the Theatetus notion of knowledge is far from obvious. I can follow the logic as a formal system, but I struggle to make sense of it (interpret it). But is this 1-3 distinction implicit within your statement of COMP? I'm not sure that it is. I think it is, and the following quote makes me thing you believe this too, at least in the quantum framework, when you say: Collapse is conceived of as a physical process, and as such is problematic. Nonphysical collapse is just the 1 POV of the Multiverse. That's all I'm talking about. But I have an explicit 1-3 distinction in the format of my PROJECTION postulate, and that quoted statement is taken in that context. Obviously I have no objection to the 1-3 distinction, but I failed to see how it follows explicitly from AR+CT+YD, or even from I am a machine (in the Turing sense). It is not new, it underlies all of Chapter 2 of my book, and also of Why Occams Razor. Perhaps I'm guilty of assuming it without explicitly stating it, but by way of challenge can you give me a piece of knowledge that doesn't come in the form of a string? Knowledge comes from third person finite strings, with a measure determined by *some* infinite strings (the non halting immaterial computations) generating them. But finite strings are just sets of infinite strings. It is certainly hard, given we live on the opposite sides of a digital world - a record of a telephone conversation we have will be a a string of bits, as will any emails we use, any my book left my hands in the form of a string of bits and so on. OK, but that are finite strings conceived and manipulated (by your computer and your brain with some high level comp assumption) as numbers. Most test editor manipulate a structure of finite strings together with a concatenation or substitution structure. Again this is infinitely richer that your set of all infinite strings. No - sets have subsets, and all finite strings can be found as a subset of the set of all infinite strings. I use the usual one (excluded middle), and I don't use any infinity axiom that I'm aware of. Now I am very confused. I thought you were assuming infinite strings. A glossary would really help, I am not sure you are not changing the meaning of your term from paragraph to paragraph. You introduced the term infinity axiom. If by a infinity axiom you mean the existence of infinite strings, or the existence of infinite sets, then yes I have an infinity axiom. Yes - I appreciate the ontological difference. I would say that only Nothing exists (in ontological meaning). Strings and sets of strings only exist in the same sense that the number 1 exists. This contradict the definition of Nothing you gave us. The set of all strings is a model of the Nothing (or equivalently the Everything). It is meant to be the ultimate model, capturing all that is possible to know about it. About the only difference I see is that the measure might be different... And that *is* the key issue, I think. I more or less always assumed this. Either COMP is more specialised (you can derive some my postulates from COMP, and others are compatible with it), or COMP is the only way of deriving these same postulates, or COMP in some way contradicts these postulates. As you admit yourself there is a lot of work to get enough precision in your approach to compare it with the consequence of the computationalist hypothesis. As I do have a lot of work to compare the comp-physics with the experimental physics. Yes - in that respect, my work ties more closely to physics. However, there is a distinct difference between my string ensemble and Schmidhuber's speed prior one, particularly with respect to randomness. Sometimes I define strong comp by saying yes to the doctor, and weak comp by accpetoing your child marry someone who has say yes to the doctor. Surely you have an opinion on that, no? To be quite frank,
Re: The Fourth Hypostase, String Theory, Diophantus and the Monster
Le 27-sept.-06, ࠲0:41, Tom Caylor a 飲it : I've thought of bringing up the Monster group here before, but I didn't think anyone here would be that weird, since I even get weird reactions to my ideas about the Riemann zeta function. I've noticed the connection with the number 26 also. (By the way, for some unknown reason in my childhood 26 was my favorite number ;) 26 is 24 + 2. 24 dimensions of space + 2 dimension of time (useful for continuous bifurcating time). I have try to develop such a toy theory. But it has no fermion although there are bizare object emerging from many sort of bosons which could perhaps play that role. There are too much theories like that, and my hope is to extract constraints from the comp person point of view. (At least now we know the difference between fiction and reality: it is 18 ;) LOL!! Can I quote you on that? :-) The difference between fiction and reality is 18 Bruno Marchal I love it! Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Hypostasis
I assume by hypostase, you mean the word hypostasis, the plural of which is hypostases. My concise Oxford dictionary defines hypostasis as underlying substance, as opposed to attributes which are unsubstantial. Are you claiming a system of logic (eg G or S4Grz1) is a substance? And if so, what do you mean by that? I have no conception. The formula p-BDp is your little abstract Schroedinger equation is it not? So you can now show that S4Grz1 proves the LASE, but also has the advantage of having a Kripke frame, so provides a temporal structure? Cheers On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 02:58:53PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Well, you should not infer this from the fact that I suspect string theories appears with the 4th hypostases, given that I am rather proud of having isolated them. If you look to Conscience and Mecanisme and to the Lille thesis you will see that at that time I was (wrongly) believing that physics could not occur but in the 4th and 5th hypostases. I thought that S4Grz1 collapses. Since then I have been able to prove that the 3rd hypostase does not collapse (under the comp restriction) but that they already defines an arithmetical quantization (that is: proves the main physical modal formulas: p - BDp and Bp - p), and I still don't know if this is a good new, except that it shows that the pure first person (the soul) has already a foot in Matter. But that soul's physics is like a pure physics completely detached of any background dependence, and at first sight it is a good place for something resembling Loop Quantum Gravity. The fourth and fifth hypostases, nevertheless, gives the only physical modalities which split through the G/G* distinction so that only them can be used for relating the non communicable qualia with the sharable quanta. Also they predicts many many exotical geographies, and currently, through the Moonshine Mystery + modular speculations, are closer to the strings theories. To be sure the experimental physicist in me (if there is any) has no competence for judging Loop versus String arguments. On the contrary, the many hypostatic nuances forced by the quantization of incompleteness (defined by the p- BDp + inverse Goldblatt transform) makes me willing to believe that both Loops and Strings are correct, but does not address the same problem. -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type application/pgp-signature. Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
