Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard, There are an infinite number of different monads, since the world is filled with them and each is a different perspective on the whole of the rest. Not only that, but they keep changing, as all life does. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 11:24:16 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: ?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. ?rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. ?ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. ? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, ? Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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.
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard Ruquist I don't know if compact manifolds are unique, that's your forte. But monads are definitely not unique-- they are infinitely varied and keep varying. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 12:34:59 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, According to Shing-Tung Yau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing-Tung_Yau current Head of the Harvard Math Dept. who verified Calabi's Conjecture, the compact manifolds are 1000 Planck lengths across and are constraaned by higher-order EM flux that winds thru its 500 holes (see The Shape of Inner Space by Yau). It is considered that each flux winding has 10 quantum states so that the total number of distinct windings is 10^500. I suggest that the number of quantum states rather may equal the dimensionality of the compact manifolds, so that the number of possibilities is 6^500 or 10^389, which is just enough to fill a good sized universe like ours with every Compact Manifold being unique. Thanks for your interest. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: ?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. ?rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. ?ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. ? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, ? Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard Ruquist That's why I am pleased ro have you as a fellow explorer. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 13:16:14 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Thank God- just an expression. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, I am familiar with those idea and several others that are similar (such as that of Matti Pitkanen who I have had long discussions with). Yau and the others seem to retain the same ontological assumptions that modern physics has been using. My philosophical inquiry is exploring alternative ontologies that do not assume primitive physicality as fundamental. This has forced me to go back and dig up all of the prior work, such as Leibniz and Descartes, on ontology. It is ironic but the claimed rejection of philosophical implications and questions by modern physicist and their shut up and calculate attitudes have only deepened the problem that they face. Only recently, physicists like Chris Isham and Roger Penrose have had the timerity to broach the philosophical questions and have faced the problems squarely. On 8/22/2012 12:34 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephen, According to Shing-Tung Yau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing-Tung_Yau current Head of the Harvard Math Dept. who verified Calabi's Conjecture, the compact manifolds are 1000 Planck lengths across and are constraaned by higher-order EM flux that winds thru its 500 holes (see The Shape of Inner Space by Yau). It is considered that each flux winding has 10 quantum states so that the total number of distinct windings is 10^500. I suggest that the number of quantum states rather may equal the dimensionality of the compact manifolds, so that the number of possibilities is 6^500 or 10^389, which is just enough to fill a good sized universe like ours with every Compact Manifold being unique. Thanks for your interest. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: What exactly determines the 10^500 number? On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: ?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. ?rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. ?ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. ? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, ? Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi meekerdb IMHO Empty strings are not monads, they are just empty strings. Monads are inextended. Even though they may contain nothing, empty strings are still extended as I see it. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 21:35:56 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology On 8/22/2012 6:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/22/2012 7:43 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 1:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/22/2012 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:36 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! NP-complete problems, or just N-problems, are ones that consume a lot of computational resources for large problems. But the required resources are finite and the problems are solvable. So what's the problem? Brent -- It is all about how big the finite problems grow to and whether or not their demand for resources can be kept up with the load. It seems to me that Nature would divide up the labor into as many niches as possible and have a distributed on demand system rather than a single top down computation system. But you're trying to explain nature. You seem to be assuming nature as a limited resource in the explanation, thus assuming the thing you're trying to explain. Bruno at least puts his explanation in Platonia where the resources are infinite. Brent -- Hi Brent, Of course I am trying to explain Nature, in the sense of building a ontological theoretical framework. If one starts assuming that Nature has infinite resources available then one has to ask why is there a finite world with all the thermodynamic drudgery? How do you know the world is finite? Most cosmologies allow that the multiverse is infinite in extent. Bruno does not seem to ever actually address this directly. Sure he does. The UD only uses finite resources at any give step - the states are countable and are only executed finitely. It is left as an open problem. This is why he dismisses the NP-Complete problem so casually... It is easy to think that way when thinking in top - down terms. I am assuming the known physical laws, particularly thermodynamics and working back down to the ontology. Physical laws are never 'known'. They are models to explain our observations. If you assume them, then you've assume the model is correct and the ontology is whatever exists in the model. Why would you do that?? He and I are looking from opposite directions. It does not mean that we fundamentally disagree on the general picture. There is really only one major disagreement between Bruno and I and it is our definitions of Universality. He defines computations and numbers are existing completely seperated from the physical and I insist that there must be at least one physical system that can actually implement a given computation. I think it is probably a consequence of his theory that persons can only exist when physics exists and vice versa; but it is difficult to work out the implications (especially for me, maybe not for Bruno). This puts the material worlds and immaterial realm on equal ontological footings and joined together in a isomorphism type duality relation because of this restriction. That means
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Stephen P. King If you can measure it, or potentially do so it's extended. Mass. size, color, voltage, etc. Whatever physical science deals with. Science thus deals exclusively with extended objects. If you can think of something, the thought (Where did i put that damn tie ?) is inextended, although the (out-in-the=world) object of thought (an actual tie in the closet) is extended. Note that the tie you thought of is inextended while being a thought, but extended as a tie actually hanging in the closet. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 08:18:36 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Roger, OK, we agree on this. The question then becomes how to explain the appearance of extension. On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Monads could never be embedded in anything because they are inextended. You as a person are inextended. Mind is inextended. Feelings are inextended. Thoughts are inextended. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 11:19:29 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Hi Richard, This description assumes an embedding space-time that is separable from the monads in it. One alternative is to work with an abstract model of (closed under mutual inclusion) totally disconnected compact spaces where the individual components of the space are the images that a set of mutually reflecting monads have. This allows us to use Greene's r - 1/r duality and the Stone duality as well. ;-) On 8/22/2012 9:15 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Yes Stephan, The 10^500 possible windings of flux constraining the compactified dimensions are sufficient to populate some 10^120 universes with every monad unique or distinct. The CYMs are known to be discrete and since the hyperfine constant varies across the universe it is likely that the monads are distinct. That this all comes from a subspace of ennumerable particles to my mind satisfies Occum's Razor. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Nothing in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary and get the result that one needs to match the data or else it is not an explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes. Look! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number of possible false vacua in string theory. The landscape includes so many possible configurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations. In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of the subset sum problem. Boom, there it is! The computation problem! On 8/22/2012 2:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote: What in the theory suggests that landscapes are a problem? Is there any evidence in any theory that only one possible set of physical laws has to pervade all of existence, or is this just an unsupported preconception/hope of physicists who've spent a big chunk of their lives looking for a unique theory? To me, the effort of finding some mathematical explanation for why only one set of physical law can be is a lot like the Copenhagen theory's attempt to rescue a single history, despite that nothing in the theory or the math would suggest as much. Jason On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant varied monotonically across the universe
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Stephen P. King Unlike everyday strings, the strings of string theory are not extended in space. The particles they describe, however, are extended in space. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 15:25:31 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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.
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard Ruquist I must be missing something. Wouldn't string theory be experimentally verified if it correctly predicts the motion of particles ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 15:39:37 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma? already found at the LHC and several other sites. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, ? Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings.? So how does it follow that strings aren't real.? That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself.? But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ?? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... ? For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address.? ? ? ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Baloney. Strings are extended in space. Where did you get that from? On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Unlike everyday strings, the strings of string theory are not extended in space. The particles they describe, however, are extended in space. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 15:25:31 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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.
Re: Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard Ruquist I think the problem is with the word strings. It's confusing, because it causes you to make a mental picture of strings and so consider them as actual physical strings in space. But strings only exist on paper, not in the physical word. They're just equations, descriptions of how particles move. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 06:50:00 Subject: Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Baloney. Strings are extended in space. Where did you get that from? On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King ? Unlike everyday strings, the strings of string theory are not extended in space. The particles they describe, however, are extended in space. ? ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 15:25:31 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, ? Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings.? So how does it follow that strings aren't real.? That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself.? But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ?? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... ? For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address.? ? ? ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant? varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: ?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.??rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. ?ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. ?? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma? already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, ?? Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, ? Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings.? So how does it follow that strings aren't real.? That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself.? But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent ?? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... ? For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address.? ? ? ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
No Roger, Take f=ma. M is a physical entity for sure. F is often taken to be physical as well, Strings are both particles of force and mass. QED Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I think the problem is with the word strings. It's confusing, because it causes you to make a mental picture of strings and so consider them as actual physical strings in space. But strings only exist on paper, not in the physical word. They're just equations, descriptions of how particles move. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 06:50:00 *Subject:* Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Baloney. Strings are extended in space. Where did you get that from? On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King � Unlike everyday strings, the strings of string theory are not extended in space. The particles they describe, however, are extended in space. � � Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 15:25:31 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, � Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--爄nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings.� So how does it follow that strings aren't real.� That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself.� But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent 牋� When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... � For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address.� � � � Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. Scientist believe that each possible universe contains but one kind of monad.. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist What is the landscape problem ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 21:26:58 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant� varied monotonically across the universe. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: 燬teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.�燼rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. 燢ovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. 牋� Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not have the landscape problem... On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma� already found at the LHC and several other sites. Hi Richard, 牋� Could you link some sources on this? On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, � Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--爄nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings.� So how does it follow that strings aren't real.� That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself.� But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent 牋� When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... � For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address.� � � � Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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. -- 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
Re: Re: Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Don't be silly. On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Is F = Ma one of the fundamental particles ? What's it look like ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 09:17:38 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology No Roger, Take f=ma. M is a physical entity for sure. F is often taken to be physical as well, Strings are both particles of force and mass. QED Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I think the problem is with the word strings. It's confusing, because it causes you to make a mental picture of strings and so consider them as actual physical strings in space. But strings only exist on paper, not in the physical word. They're just equations, descriptions of how particles move. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 06:50:00 *Subject:* Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Baloney. Strings are extended in space. Where did you get that from? On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.netwrote: Hi Stephen P. King Unlike everyday strings, the strings of string theory are not extended in space. The particles they describe, however, are extended in space. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-21, 15:25:31 *Subject:* Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--爄nstead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house shows that my house isn't real. I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some part of reality - like, My house is green. refers to a part of reality, but My house is blue. does not. Brent 牋 When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The LHC is looking for such evidence... For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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. -- 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
Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology
Hi guys, Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things that exist. Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations might describe something physical. For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house, it is my address. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/21/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 16:21:32 Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology Stephan, Well I agree the CYMs are a form of substance. But there are string theories where the background spacetime is flexible, to use a common term. So that is not a theory limitation. The frozen block approximation allows for certain solutions that the flexible spacetime inhibits.? I do think the CYMs are flexible since according to string theorists they contain the the laws and constants of physics allowing for 10^500 different universes. That should cover every possibility. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/20/2012 1:40 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Hi Stephan, I do not think that string theory requires a fixed background.? Otherwise string theory could not be a prospective ToE. Richard Hi Richard, ?? I had the very same reaction, but research it for yourself. Look at the literature, the trick is the use of fiber bundles which require a base space. They get away with it because they are using the entire space-time manifold (like the frozen ice block idea) as the base space, so it appears to be OK. But this leads to the landscape problem because they have to consider the theory of all possible space-time manifolds. The fundamental problem that I see with the entire exercise is the assumption of primitive matter (here in the form of primitive space-time manifolds that are fibered with a plenum of orbifolds), the very same problem that Bruno is pointing out. The entire idea that substance is fundamental needs to be re-evaluated and seen as just a basis of observation and not something ontologically a priori. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/20/2012 11:36 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Wiki:? Mereology has been axiomatized in various ways as applications of?predicate logic?o?formal ontology, of which mereology is an important part. A common element of such axiomatizations is the assumption, shared with inclusion, that the part-whole relation?ordersits universe, meaning that everything is a part of itself (reflexivity), that a part of a part of a whole is itself a part of that whole (transitivity), Richard: These assumptions apply to the Indra Pearl's of Chinese Buddhism and to Liebniz's monads. And more importantly superstring theory requires that tiny balls of??6-dmensional?space exist which turn out to have the properties of reflexivity and transitivity, and therefore are candidates to be the pearls and monads. ?iki: and that two distinct entities cannot each be a part of the other (antisymmetry). Richard: It seems that neither the pearls, or monads, and certainly not the CYMs have this property. So its strickly not mereology that applies to monads and the rest. Hi Richard, ? I agree with all with a small exception:? I have a big problem with the superstring theory's use of a fixed background spacetime into which it embeds the compactified manifolds. It violates general covariance in doing this! -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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
