On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/26/2012 6:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well, in defense of Craig, or of the devil, this has not been
proved. The problem occurs, or at least is easy to prove only
when we make the digital assumption. This entails a truncation of
the subject,
On 12/23/2012 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/26/2012 6:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well, in defense of Craig, or of the devil, this has not been
proved. The problem occurs, or at least is easy to prove only when
we make the digital assumption.
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
STEPHEN: 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
On 25 Oct 2012, at 15:06, 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
On 10/26/2012 8:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
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.
Hi Roger,
On 10/26/2012 6:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well, in defense of Craig, or of the devil, this has not been proved. The problem
occurs, or at least is easy to prove only when we make the digital assumption. This
entails a truncation of the subject, local and relative (its mind code) which by the
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
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
curled-up/compactified went out of orthogonality
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.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 10/25/2012 7:58 AM,
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
Actually all string theories are based on an n dimensional manifold
where n may be anywhere from 9 to 26 or more dimensions
plus the assumption that all the dimensions but 3 compactify.
I even think of time as a compactified dimension.
Not sure if that's consistent with Relativity.
Theories that
On 10/25/2012 2:21 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Actually all string theories are based on an n dimensional manifold
where n may be anywhere from 9 to 26 or more dimensions
plus the assumption that all the dimensions but 3 compactify.
I even think of time as a compactified dimension.
Not sure if
Nonsense Stephan,
I totally agree with everything you copied over
but totally disagree with your interpretation of it.
Richard
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 10/24/2012 2:35 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I do not understand what you are saying
On 10/24/2012 10:20 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Nonsense Stephan,
I totally agree with everything you copied over
but totally disagree with your interpretation of it.
Richard
OK, please tell me how else the math is to be understood.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Stephen P. King
Stephan,
The compactified dimensions curl-up into particles
that resemble a crystalline structure
with some peculiar properties
compared to ordinary particles,
but nevertheless just particles.
What about that do you not understand?
Richard
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Stephen P. King
On 10/24/2012 11:25 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephan,
The compactified dimensions curl-up into particles
that resemble a crystalline structure
with some peculiar properties
compared to ordinary particles,
but nevertheless just particles.
What about that do you not understand?
Richard
Dear
Please inform ST Yau of your views. He will be interested for sure.
I have informed him of my paper and he found it interesting.
Personally I think your perspective is intellectualism.
Richard
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 10/24/2012 11:25 PM,
On 10/25/2012 12:46 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Please inform ST Yau of your views. He will be interested for sure.
I have informed him of my paper and he found it interesting.
Personally I think your perspective is intellectualism.
Richard
Dear Richard,
Your point is well made. It is quite
19 matches
Mail list logo
