On May 12, 8:00 pm, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
> > On 5/12/2012 10:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:20 AM, scerir <sce...@libero.it> wrote:
> >> >A few quotes below to dualism from Max Velmans.
> >> >Evgenii
> >> H. Kragh ("Dirac: a Scientific Biography", Cambridge U.P., 1990) reports
> >> a 1927 discussion between Dirac, Heisenberg and Born, about what
> >> actually gives rise to the so called "collapse" (reduction of waves
> >> packet).
> >> Dirac said that it is 'Nature' that makes the choice (of measurement
> >> outcome).
> >> Born agreed. Heisenberg however maintained that, behind the collapse,
> >> and the choice of which 'branch' the wavefunction would be followed, there
> >> was "the free-will of the human observer".
> > Leibniz, IMO, would also claim that Nature makes the choice, but that
> > his collection of monads perceive (based on their consciousness) what is
> > the best possible wave function choice to obtain the best possible
> > universe. What Leibniz apparently leaves out of his philosophy is that
> > human free-will consciousness can make the world imperfect, perhaps even
> > suicidal. String theory seems consistent with Leibniz in that the discrete
> > balls of compactified dimensions have some monad properties, which is these
> > days what I preach. And I wonder if this could be consistent with COMP,
> > since it's all theological. Richard
> > Hi Richard,
> > We can strip out all the religiosity from Leibniz' ideas.
> > Leibniz' monads where perseptions themselves, not entities that where
> > conscious and perceived things. What we have previously discussed as
> > "Observer Moments" are a better analogy to what Leibniz had in mind. He did
> > postulate that God arranged them such that their content was always
> > synchronized; this is the "pre-established harmony" (PEH) concept. I think
> > that Leibniz' mistake was to assume that there exists an "absolute"
> > observer" with a "view from nowhere" that defined an objective 3-p. There
> > are strong mathematical inconsistencies with this idea.
> > For one thing, a PEH requires the discovery and application of a
> > solution to an infinite SAT complexity problem, not the mere existence of
> > one.-
> > Onward!
> > Hi Stephan,
> If what you say is true about monads, that each does not see the entire
> universe, then they cannot be the balls of compactified dimensions of
> string theory because Brian Greene's 2d solution indicates that each maps
> the entire outside plane to its inside. Now that may not be consciousness
> and Leibniz did say that his monads were not exactly conscious. But to me
> mapping the universe to the interior, a kind of inverse holography, sounds
> exactly like what Leibniz says of his monads in his tract Monadology. I
> have no idea what you mean by your last sentence above.
It is not correct to think of the monads as "compactified
dimensions" in the usual way as this would define an inside-outside
relation on them that does is incompatible with the duality. The
relation is similar to what Brian Greene describes, but the relation
is not the usual mapping between geometric manifolds.
Leibniz used a very simple notion of consciousness. Craig's notion
of Sense is the closest analogy that I have found so far.
The "pre-established harmony" (PEH) concept is equivalent to an
infinite theory or model that defines all of the states of the
universe in a way that does not allow any contradictions.
Stephen P. King
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at