Hi Richard,
Somewhow I seem to have lost my reply to your criticism
of my (and Leibniz's) philosophical concept of space.
I believe with Einstein that space consists only of
relative distances, not absolute ones, and also with him
that space and time only exist as spacetime, whose
increment is dxdydzdt. Although spacetime has the dimensions
of distance, there's nothing in it. There's no ether, nothing.
Nothing.
So it is quite logical not to refer to or consider time,
space, or spacetime itself as a "thing", a physical entity,
it is merely the location of an entity. Similarly,
Kant referred to space and time as intuitions,
not objects. Monads exist in two forms,
the physical substances they refer to and the
corresponding mental idea, which Leibniz
unfortunately also usually calls a substance.
But there is nothing there with merely spacetime
but no object in them. It's just a formality.
So neither space and time nor spacetime
physically exist, and can't appear as monads.
That being so, the universe consists only
of monads in Leibniz's philosophy, an infinite
overlay of dots of true reality.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/11/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-10, 23:20:19
Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:37:33 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
The why is that your conception of space is unscientific.
You sound like a New Ager.
Also, not to pick a fight or to diminish the work that you are doing (which I
respect), but your conception of space is:
.
"24 space-like dimensions of which all but 6 Space Dimensions have compactified
into two effectively zero-volume matrices of wires of thickness near the Planck
scale and Calabi-Yau fourfolds of 1000 Planck scales at their junctions."
What do you think that people of Earth would say about that theory, say, any
time before 1970?
Compare that with my conception of space, which is that it is a text which is
encoded and decoded through the coordinated experiences of matter itself, and
that rather than telepathic memory in familiarized particles, quantum
entanglement is evidence that space is in fact a 0 dimensional semiotic facade.
Which sounds more New Agey to you? What is a "space-like dimension"? A
semi-measurable, semi-nothing? What happens if you try thinking of it my way,
just for an hour or so, and see what happens? I have already thought of it your
way, and it just leads right back to a classical world connected mathematically
to a quantum never never land, but not to the color red or the feeling of an
itch. What universe are we talking about if we are not the ones living there?
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:46:17 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> I disagree with everything you suggest.
>
>
> You are welcome to disagree, but without knowing why, I can only assume that
> you don't really have an argument against my view. The bottom line is that
> without some theory which gets us from matter to *us right here* it really
> is more of in interesting curiosity. It may turn out to be incredibly
> useful/important/profitable from an engineering and technology standpoint,
> but it really doesn't answer the timeless questions of who we are and what
> awareness is. My model does that.
>
> Craig
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:52:30 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Craig,
>> >> Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws.
>> >>
>> >> You are confusing string theory with comp which apparently makes
>> >> everything.
>> >>
>> >> String theory monads are made in the big bang by having the excess
>> >> dimensions of the space of string theory curl up into 1000 planck
>> >> diameter particles that precipitate out of 3-D space. In fact they're
>> >> curling up is what allows 3-D space to inflate. As space is still
>> >> expanding, monads are apparently still being made.
>> >>
>> >> The monads exist in what would be commonly called a supernatural realm.
>> >> They solve the hard problems of consciousness. Neurons do not. That is
>> >> why they are needed. But the fact is that according to string theory,
>> >> they (the monads) exist.
>> >>
>> >> You can quibble with string theory if you like. In my models that
>> >> extend string theory to consciousness, string theory is assumed to be
>> >> correct, even if my modelling is incorrect.
>> >> All I claim is that my model is one possibility among many that
>> >> probably can never be proven.
>> >> Richard
>> >
>> >
>> > All that I suggest is that string theory and especially string monads
>> > only
>> > really address the hard problem if they are understood as figurative
>> > strings
>> > rather than literal structures. The dimensions would have to be
>> > qualitative
>> > experiential dimensions (like emotion, meaning, etc.) rather than
>> > literally
>> > 'different kinds of space'.
>> >
>> > In my view the whole notion of space as a plenum is a non-starter. You
>> > can
>> > look at it that way and perhaps it will work eventually, but it is the
>> > loooong way around - like trying to guess what song is playing by
>> > analyzing
>> > a database of the expressions on the faces of people listening to that
>> > song.
>> >
>> > I say that space is a dimensionless void between phenomena which do have
>> > qualities that can be expressed as partly quantifiable with dimension.
>> > We
>> > are in the big bang, as we always have been, only it is banging within,
>> > diffracting itself in many different ways, both figuratively and
>> > literally
>> > at the same time.
>> >
>> > Craig
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > Groups
>> > "Everything List" group.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/JrTIYscXvbwJ.
>> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Q8vH2J5UkF0J.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/P-I1iLjh8FoJ.
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.
