D.O.: Isn’t a boundary less fundamental than something that’s not a boundary?
EK: No. This is the container view again.
MS: Are you happy for both to be equally fundamental? Are all grades of fundamentally equivalent?
EK. Yes. [Rest of answer lost]
JB: In EM, holonomies are non-local and vastly overcomplete. Fundamental meaning sub-ontic? If we resist your view, it is in part that we believe that dimension is background for everything else we do in physics.
EK. But need to cash out why that is difficult. Prima facie, we can cope with indeterminate dimensionality. Why must it be determinate? Doesn’t quantum gravity do away with the container view entirely?
NH: One of the things relevant to T duality is that both of the duals predict that the space is large. States in either dual have an interpretation in terms of dual processes. It doesn’t matter which you choose. Is this similar to AdS/CFT? What would beings who live in either of these spaces experience?
KH: If we define things functionally/structurally then plausible that we only live in one.
DB: Suppose the correct theory of our world is dual to boundary CFT. Say I ostend to dimensions, then I’ve fixed what I mean and the theory on the boundary is just a notational variant.
EK: Any such theory will require us to identify my experiences within the theory. Are there principled reasons to prefer one description to the other?.