http://www.physorg.com/news68731082.html

we would like to seek in KNOTS THEORY ALL PPOSSIBILITIES OF PHYSICS LAWS THROUGH OF TOPOLOGY AND GEOMETRY.SEEK THE INFINITIES POSSIBILITIES OF THE EXISTENCE OF SPACE_TIME THAT CAN TO BE REFLECTED IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD.THEN THE SYMMETRIES AND ASYMMETRIES WOULD GIVE US THE FORMS AND EXPRESSIONS OF THE COSMOS,AS WELL AS AN ABSOLUTE MATHEMATICS RELATION TO ALL EVENTS IN PHYSICAL WORLD.SO I THINK THAT SUPERSTRINGS ARE DERIVED OF THE N_TOPOLOGIC COMBINATIONS GOT IN DETERMINED MANIFOLD SPATIAL DIMENSION,COMBINED WITH O TIME FACTOR THAT DOES THESE DISTRIBUITION OF KNOTS THROGH INVERSION AND REVERSION OF SPACE_TIME CHARACTERIZING THE DIMENSION POSSIBLE TO SUPERSTRINGS
a.pocobi

In one important way, the anthropic principle could also be qualified as not just an anthropocentric, but an anthropomaniacal paradigm which steers interpretation of cosmogonic epistemology towards a select focus that pertinently misses most of the spectrum of manifest organicity, and its enormous spectrum of "observers" in the universe. Each identifiable and subjectifiable ontological identity (and this needs further careful attribution as far as authentic entity-status is concerned for which there is no room or opportunity here) has its own range of sensitivities to its non-self environmental stimuli, in higher organic organisations called "sentience" and in the human case of course qualified as intelligent consciousness. This however upon deeper inspection is clearly a scholastic "explanation" which denies the unique sensitivity/sentience on the part of, not just non-human, non-animalian, but even simplistically defined "non-organic" ontological entities.

The universe is abundantly filled with a spectrum of matter-energy complexes (ontological entities) that are in constant energy-interchange, information interchange and exchange - in fact, energy is always informed energy, no such thing as "informationless energy" exists.

The capacity of ontological entities to have environmental sensitivity to select sub-spectra of non-self environmental stimuli essentially amounts to their capacity for self-reorganisational reactivity - at which humans excel in just one way. All impacting, transduced, informational signalling in the cosmic energy-matter domain is selectively interpretable where this selectivity depends on each ontological species' "design intention" (Searle; Dennet - which btw has nothing whatever to do with intelligent design leanings).

However useful the anthropic principle is as an axiomatically inductive precept, we must therefore pertinently see its application in a trans-species sense, which in fact makes it vastly more philosophically attractive, meaningful and applicable in metaphysics.

Further, I have a basic gripe against cosmologists, cosmogonists and many other in the scientific fraternity who still insistently, and obsolescently, cling to the idea of the plural term "universes." As I have explained in previous articles and comments - the etymological root of the word "Universe" consists of a collocation of "unum" meaning "single / one / all" and "versum" from "vertere" = "to turn into" - literally "The All turned into One." Irrespective of universal, cosmological domains which may be spatiotemporally, dimensionally, or in some further way attributionally isolated from each other in their interactive dynamics, the TOTAL cosmological aggregate of these IS the single universe. Such mutually isolative domains (where the apparent isolation may be via apparently impenetrable phase-boundaries or phase transitions, dimensional, or other spatiotemporal attributionally identified dynamics or structure) are therefore more accurately termed universal subdomains. Useful further qualification of such (identified or identifiable) subdomains can be in terms of select morphological or dynamic attributes, such as partial dimensional overlap, dimensional-set overlap, or instead identifiable by their mutually exclusive dynamics or mophological structures instead of those common to them.

The plural term "universes" ALWAYS applies and refers essentially to such cosmological subdomains and should not be considered a legitimate lexeme in serious scientific epistemology. The acceptability of the conceptually inaccurate plural should be considered only marginally allowable in sci-fi or magazine literature, or common parlance where doubtlessly the concept has not "clicked" in the available range of "Sentience Quotient."

At a slight tangent, the term "money" in Bulgarian implies a plural: "Where 'are' the money, have you paid 'them'?" I keep on correcting my Bulgarian wife and dear spiritual companion about this clear grammatical error, almost to no avail, indubitably because the concept that "money is a plural entity" has so deeply settled in the memetic heritage of the language and its conceptual manifest. I explain that "money is like air - you can only speak of 'air is' and not 'air are' can't you?

Unfortunately, being a "pessimistic realist" I don't doubt that many won't be able to effect the intellectual "click" to finally understand that the plural term of universe is an acute "contradictio in terminis" and defeats itself in its own defined conceptual impossibility - but then, it took the world a little while to conceptually (and paradigmatically) evolve from geocentricity to heliocentricity too...

FV