Hi Stephen P. King
Wow ! This connects up with what I have been speculating,
namely that comp or at least some sort of calculation,
can, if not recreate the brainmind, at least simulate what it does.
I need to study more about your theory.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/26/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-25, 14:09:23
Subject: Re: Strings are not in space-time, they are on space-time
On 10/25/2012 12:31 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephan,
But you said that you liked my paper
which was about how consciousness
might arise from the Compact Manifolds
if they are enumerable
as astronomical observations suggest.
Richard.
Hi Richard,
Yes, I did say that and I still do. In the model that I am advocating,
there exists an infinite number of "monads" that have (in the math of the
model) a duality between totally disconnected compact Hausdorff topological
space (aka Stone space) and Boolean algebra aspects. It is a 'dual aspect"
ontology.
Minds, 1p, numbers, arithmetics and consciousness are elaborations on the
Boolean algebras. Your compact manifolds are included in the class of
topological spaces, thus they would be proto-conscious. The problem that I have
is that the string theoretical version of compact manifolds demands the
additional existence of a physical space-time manifold where as in my proposal
there is no need to postulate a space-time at all.
Space-time is a collective illusion emerging from the mutual consistency of
1p content of the "monads".
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/25/2012 7:58 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
curled-up/compactified went out of orthogonality during the big bang
according to Cumrun Vafa. I'll look up that reference if you are
interested.
According to Vafa 2 dimensions compactified for every single space
dimension that inflated. In over simplified terms, 2 dimensions
(actually in strips of some 10,000 Planck lengths) to be compactified
lined up say in the east-west space dimension so that space in an
orthogonal direction could expand. So some semblance of orthogonality
exists in the compactification process, but it is clear that the
compactified dimensions become embedded in 3D space for inflation to
occur.
Again from Vafa but a different reference, the hyper-EM flux that
winds through the 500 topo holes in the resulting compactified
particle (or crystalline element) is what constrains the particle from
re-inflating. The manner in which the flux winds through each Compact
Manifold (CM) particle apparently determines the laws and constants of
physics and is the basis of the so-called string theory landscape
As far as I know the hyper-EM constraining flux are not the strings
that are the basis of physical particles like photons or electrons.
But they may be related. I am admittedly just a (string-theory)
systems analyst and not a string theorist. I take the word of
theorists like Vafa and Yau at face value (whatever that means) for
the properties of the CM particles.
Other than reading the literature, my limited understanding comes from
auditing one of Vafa's courses on string theory at Harvard as an
alumnus.
Richard
Hi Richard,
How does Vafa explain the stability/instability of compactified
dimensions? My chief worry is that all of the stringy and loopy theories
assume a pre-existing continuum of space-time of some sort, the very
Aristotelian "substance" idea that Bruno's argument successfully attacks.
The assumption of primitive substances is very problematic as it does not
allow for any room for consciousness to occur or be causally effective. I do
like the idea of hyper-EM fluxes, but am not so sure that they are anything
more than fancy math, fiber bundles and sheaf transform groups on n-genus
topological manifolds and so on....
Where are all of the sparticles and bosinos that are supposed to exist
if SUSY is correct? Occam's razor keeps me from believing in them...
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
