Dear David,

In connection with my preceding email of Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:53:28 +0200,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Coule.html

may I comment on your recent "Contrasting Quantum Cosmologies", gr-qc/0312045 v1 of Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:23:47 GMT. You wrote:

p. 12: "One advantage of loop quantum gravity over strings is that a background independent formalism might easier be achieved [2]."

And pigs might fly, too. I specifically warned Martin Bojowald about his "small but very specific quantum corrections",

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Bojowald.html

I'm glad that you showed Martin 'the devil in the details'.

Also, your reference [2] includes Lee Smolin's recent book. See what Lee wrote on pp. 205-206 and what he missed at

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Pullin.html#NB

p. 13: "The idea of space being made of discrete quanta might introduce further conceptual problems. In an expanding model new cells have to be produced to fill in the gaps. But if we make analogy with cell division in living organisms, how are cells produced without error? Because presumably there is no analogy with DNA, there seems the need of providing "scaffolding" to force cells to have their correct form. One might try and claim the classical equations impose this by stricture, but if only a few cells are present the classical structure is still unformed. Constant quantum fluctuations at short distance have continually now to be kept in check. (...) We seem instead, for loop cosmology, in need of a sort of "generalized Mach's principle" e.g. [4,8], telling the individual granules how the universe actually is on average."

So, how are cells produced without error?

How could you think about some ongoing, bi-directional talk between all cells and the whole universe? The "scaffolding" is just like the one in the human brain,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Brun.html#electron

I hope you are not going to embrace the New Age of anthropic principle, along with Steven Weinberg,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Carroll.html#PS

p. 15: "Perhaps a better explanation is still to be found within the realms of quantum gravity. Whether a single quanta of spacetime - a modern version of Lemaître's "primeval atom" - is involved or an entirely new conceptual approach (from M theory?) certainly remains an fascinating topic for the future."

I fully agree that Lemaître's 'primeval atom' remains a fascinating topic for the future. Please don't miss another atom, from Lucretius, and the solution to the paradox of continuum,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Pestov.html#continuum

It seems to me that this is *the only possible* solution to the problem of quantizing spacetime in quantum gravity. If you believe in some other recipe, please see Angelo Loinger's oxymoron at

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0308042

Actually, the story goes back to St. Augustine,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/white_paper.html

Why invent the wheel? See also

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Visser.html

Take care,

Dimi
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
--
You can bring the horse to the water, but you cannot make him think

=====

Subject: Avoiding paradox with infinite space
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:53:28 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@surfeu.at>
To: David Coule <david.coule@port.ac.uk>
CC: Eric Poisson <poisson@physics.uoguelph.ca>,
     Ramesh Narayan <narayan@cfa.harvard.edu>,
     Shinji Mukohyama <mukoyama@schwinger.harvard.edu>,
     Paolo Creminelli <creminel@bose.harvard.edu>,
     Matthew Schwartz <matthew@feynman.princeton.edu>,
     Lisa Randall <randall@feynman.princeton.edu>,
     Joseph Lykken <lykken@fnal.gov>, Paul Werbos <pwerbos@nsf.gov>,
     Alex Vilenkin <vilenkin@cosmos.phy.tufts.edu>,
     John Barrow <J.D.Barrow@damtp.cam.ac.uk>
 

Dear David,

In your recent gr-qc/0311022 from Fri, 7 Nov 2003 17:02:42 GMT, you wrote: "Ultimately, the global topology will determine whether "games" can continue to be played."

Perhaps you may be interested to see

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Luminet.html

Regarding the idea that an infinite universe might include every possible action chosen *not* to perform (J. Knobe, K.D. Olum and A. Vilenkin, Philosophical implications of Inflationary cosmology, physics/0302071), see

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Carroll.html#PS

You also wrote: "The connection between a brain state and an actual understanding is also more involved than suggested. On a practical ground there are estimated to be roughly 10^10^10 possible patterns within the brain [27,28]. The notion of keeping track of these fragile states is not compatible with quantum mechanics, since observation alone would alter the states."

Ref. [28] is John Barrow's "The Constants of Nature" (Vintage Press, London, 2003). Perhaps it would be a good idea if you quote more reliable sources; I don't think one can completely trust John Barrow's understanding of the human brain.

"However, Wittgenstein's "Philosophical investigations" [26] suggests that without "direct contact" you cannot gain true understanding in your mind."

I believe you are aware of my web site and can search for references by professional neuroscientists. See, for example, Raymond Ruyer in

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Montesinos.html

It's actually about the nature of gravity. Perhaps the math needed is just at the tip of your fingers, yours and/or those of your colleagues. Good luck.

Kindest regards,

Dimi
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov/white_paper.html
--
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.  The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/faq.html

Pritie amzanig huh?