On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 10/27/2012 12:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephen,
I agree that All of this discussion is below the level of conscious
self-awareness, but prefer to think of raw perception as
distinguishing what can be from
Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-26, 09:48:32
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Compact dimensions and orthogonality
Roger,
Your Leibniz monads are not extended, but the monads of string theory
are extended yet have most of the important properties of inextension.
Richard
On Fri, Oct 26
Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/26/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-25, 15:27:47
Subject: Re: Compact dimensions and orthogonality
On 10/25/2012 11:47 AM, Richard
On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:46:23 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/26/2012 11:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All of it ultimately has to be grounded in ordinary conscious
experience. Otherwise we have an infinite regress of invisible
homunculi translating crystalline
On 27 Oct 2012, at 07:56, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/27/2012 12:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephen,
I agree that All of this discussion is below the level of conscious
self-awareness, but prefer to think of raw perception as
distinguishing what can be from what cannot be, as for
the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-25, 14:23:04
Subject: Re: Compact dimensions and orthogonality
On 10/25/2012 10:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote
the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-25, 15:27:47
Subject: Re: Compact dimensions and orthogonality
On 10/25/2012 11:47 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2012 10:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote
the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-25, 14:23:04
Subject: Re: Compact dimensions and orthogonality
On 10/25/2012 10:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-26, 08:08:44
Subject: Re: Re: Compact dimensions and orthogonality
No Roger,
In string theory dimensions are conserved but can undergo extreme
modification such as in compactification where formerly orthogonal
dimensions become embedded in 3D space in spite
: Compact dimensions and orthogonality
No Roger,
In string theory dimensions are conserved but can undergo extreme
modification such as in compactification where formerly orthogonal
dimensions become embedded in 3D space in spite of what Brent thinks.
However, the string theory monads that result
On 10/26/2012 5:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Brent,
What happens -- or is it even possible -- to
collapse the dimensions down to one (which I
conjecture might be time), or zero (Platonia or mind).
I'm not sure what you mean by 'collapse'. Do you mean, Is is possible to invent a theory
On 10/26/2012 5:08 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
No Roger,
In string theory dimensions are conserved but can undergo extreme
modification such as in compactification where formerly orthogonal
dimensions become embedded in 3D space in spite of what Brent thinks.
Do you have a reference that
Yes
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Calabi-Yau_manifold#Calabi-Yau_manifolds_in_string_theory
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/26/2012 5:08 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
No Roger,
In string theory dimensions are conserved but can undergo extreme
On 10/26/2012 4:31 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Yes
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Calabi-Yau_manifold#Calabi-Yau_manifolds_in_string_theory
Hi Richard,
Could you cut and paste the specific description that answers
Brent's question?
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:01 PM, meekerdb
On 10/26/2012 1:31 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Yes
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Calabi-Yau_manifold#Calabi-Yau_manifolds_in_string_theory
A search on embed turns up nothing about embedding in 3-space.
Brent
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:01 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
The requested excerpt from
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Calabi-Yau_manifold#Calabi-Yau_manifolds_in_string_theory:
Calabi-Yau manifolds in string theory
Superstring theory is a unified theory for all the forces of nature
including quantum gravity. In superstring theory, the fundamental
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The requested excerpt from
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Calabi-Yau_manifold#Calabi-Yau_manifolds_in_string_theory:
Calabi-Yau manifolds in string theory
Superstring theory is a unified theory for all the forces
Dear Richard,
From the quote below: it is expected that the 10-dimensional
space-time of string theory is locally the product M4×X of a
4-dimensional Minkowski space M3,1 with a 6-dimensional space X.
This local product operation, represented by the 'x' is the act
of adding two
Dear Richard,
You wrote: the picture of the Compact Manifolds as a periodic
structure of 6d particles in 3D space. I agree that a crude reading of
10d string theory is consistent with this picture. This picture is built
for use in quantum field theories where particles are excitations of
No one said they were free floating
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Richard,
From the quote below: it is expected that the 10-dimensional space-time
of string theory is locally the product M4×X of a 4-dimensional Minkowski
space M3,1
On 10/26/2012 4:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Richard,
From the quote below: it is expected that the 10-dimensional space-time of string
theory is locally the product M4×X of a 4-dimensional Minkowski space M3,1 with a
6-dimensional space X.
This local product operation,
Hi Richard,
OK, then where are we in disagreement?
On 10/26/2012 8:05 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
No one said they were free floating
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Richard,
From the quote below: it is expected that the
On 10/26/2012 8:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/26/2012 4:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Richard,
From the quote below: it is expected that the 10-dimensional
space-time of string theory is locally the product M4×X of a
4-dimensional Minkowski space M3,1 with a 6-dimensional space X.
Well, I admit that you said that. I said they had a rather crystalline
structure.
And you repeated my remark. If you think they are free floating,
then we are in disagreement.
Richard
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Richard,
OK, then where
On 10/26/2012 9:27 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Well, I admit that you said that. I said they had a rather crystalline
structure.
And you repeated my remark. If you think they are free floating,
then we are in disagreement.
Richard
Hi Richard,
They cannot be free floating. On that we
On 10/26/2012 7:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/26/2012 9:27 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Well, I admit that you said that. I said they had a rather crystalline
structure.
And you repeated my remark. If you think they are free floating,
then we are in disagreement.
Richard
Hi Richard,
All of it ultimately has to be grounded in ordinary conscious experience.
Otherwise we have an infinite regress of invisible homunculi translating
crystalline manifolds in compactified space into ordinary experiences. At
what point does it become necessary for vibrating topological constructs
On 10/26/2012 11:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All of it ultimately has to be grounded in ordinary conscious
experience. Otherwise we have an infinite regress of invisible
homunculi translating crystalline manifolds in compactified space into
ordinary experiences. At what point does it become
Stephan,
I agree that All of this discussion is below the level of conscious
self-awareness, but prefer to think of raw perception as
distinguishing what can be from what cannot be, as for example in
constructor theory.
In my model conscious awareness is an arithmetic emergent due to the
On 10/26/2012 9:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/26/2012 10:36 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/26/2012 7:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/26/2012 9:27 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Well, I admit that you said that. I said they had a rather crystalline
structure.
And you repeated my remark. If
On 10/27/2012 12:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephen,
I agree that All of this discussion is below the level of conscious
self-awareness, but prefer to think of raw perception as
distinguishing what can be from what cannot be, as for example in
constructor theory.
In my model conscious
On 10/25/2012 11:52 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2012 4:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephan,
Since yesterday it occurred to me that you may be thinking of the 10
or more dimensions of string theory as being orthogonal because they
were so before the big bang. But the dimensions that
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 10/25/2012 11:52 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2012 4:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephan,
Since yesterday it occurred to me that you may be thinking of the 10
or more dimensions of string theory as being
On 10/25/2012 10:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 10/25/2012 11:52 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2012 4:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephan,
Since yesterday it occurred to me that you may be thinking of the 10
or
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/25/2012 10:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 10/25/2012 11:52 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2012 4:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephan,
On 10/25/2012 11:47 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/25/2012 10:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 10/25/2012 11:52 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On
On 10/25/2012 1:49 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I am still waiting for the explanation of how you know that to be true-
that the compact manifolds are orthogonal to space dimensions.
Richard
Dear Richard,
That is what the 'x' in the string of symbols M_4 x X means. The
relation is
37 matches
Mail list logo
