Hi Stephen P. King 

Leibniz' best possible world is a conjecture
based on L's two worlds of logic:

1) There is logic that is either always true or false, called the logic of 
reason or necessity.
        One could call this "theory"

2) The logic of contingency, also called the logic of "fact", experimental 
     or praxis, which can be true or false -- depending on the perfection  of 
the entity 
    or the time of occurrence. "actuality"

Most people who acccuse God of injustice or unfairness by a supposedly loving 
confuse theory with actuality. Earthquakes do occur because the world has 
or  cracks ior the cointinental plaes don't fit perfectly together.

And any fact must be that way for a reason, the reason also may be contingent, 
up the line.

Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-12, 14:05:46
Subject: Re: pre-established harmony

Hi Roger,

    I will interleave some remarks.

On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 

As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as 

    Allow me to use the analogy a bit more but carefully to not go too far. 
This "musical score", does it require work of some kind to be created itself? 

This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that intelligence
could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.

    I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires solving an 
NP-Complete computational problem that has an infinite number of variables. 
Additionally, it is not possible to maximize or optimize more than one variable 
in a multivariate system. Unless we are going to grant God the ability to 
contradict mathematical facts, which, I argue, is equivalent to granting 
violations of the basis rules of non-contradiction, then God would have to run 
an eternal computation prior to the creation of the Universe. This is absurd! 
How can the existence of something have a beginning if it requires an an 
infinite problem to be solved first?
    Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run, and if 
resources are not available then there is no way to claim access to the 
information that would be in the solution that the computation would generate. 
WE might try to get around this problem the way that Bruno does by stipulating 
that the "truth" of the solution gives it existence, but the fact that some 
mathematical statement or sigma_1 sentence is true (in the prior sense) does 
not allow it to be considered as accessible for use for other things. For 
example, we could make valid claims about the content of a meteor that no one 
has examined but we cannot have any certainty about those claims unless we 
actually crack open the rock and physically examine its contents. 
    The state of the universe as "moving harmoniously together" was not exactly 
what the PEH was for Leibniz. It was the synchronization of the simple actions 
of the Monads. It was a coordination of the percepts that make up the monads 
such that, for example, my monadic percept of living in a world that you also 
live in is synchronized with your monadic view of living in a world that I also 
live in such that we can be said to have this email chat. Remember, Monads (as 
defined in the Monadology) have no windows and cannot be considered to either 
"exchange" substances nor are embedded in a common medium that can exchange 
excitations. The entire "common world of appearances" emerges from and could be 
said to supervene upon the synchronization of internal (1p subjective) Monadic 

    I argue that the only way that God could find a solution to the NP-Complete 
problem is to make the creation of the universe simulataneous with the 
computations so that the universe itself is the computer that is finding the 
solution. This idea is discussed by several people including David Deutsch, Lee 
Smolin, Roger Penrose and Stuart Kaufman in their books. This implies that 
God's creative act is not a singular event but an eternal process.

I suppose that this accords with Leibniz's belief that God,
whoc is good, constructed the best possible world where
as a miniomum, that least physics is obeyed.


Voltaire's  foolish criticism of Leibniz in Candide that how 
could  the volcanic or earthquake disaster in Lisbon be
part of the most perfect world ?

    Voltair was a poor fool that could not understand the simple idea that only 
one variable can be maximized. Perhaps he was not a fool and knew the facts but 
wanted to discredit Leibniz's superior ideas.

Thus, because physics must be obeyed, sometimes crap happens.

    Indeed. One might even argue that the existence of evil in the world is a 
consequence of choice; that only in a world completely devoid of choice might 
it be possible for crap to never occur. But this can be shown to have a 
vanishingly small probability or even zero chance of actually occurring, as 1) 
the NP-Complete problem would have to first be solved and 2) there would have 
to be a very happy "accident" where no one ever happen to be doing the actions 
which would lead them to see evil - given that evil is a valuation that occurs 
in our minds and is not an actual extant state of the world.

* As a related and possibly explanatory point, L's universe
completely is nonlocal. 
    Indeed! I argue that L's monadology almost exactly anticipated the concept 
of a quantum mechanical system, since a QM system by definition is a windowless 
monad that never exchanges substances with others and is "simple" by L's 
definition. All notions of interactions in QM are defined internal to single QM 
systems as the scattering states of its Hamiltonian. This latter idea was 
explored and written about by Prof. Hitoshi Kitada as found here: 

Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-11, 01:56:41
Subject: Re: Where's the agent ? Who or what does stuff and is aware of stuff ?

Hi Roger,

    I have noticed and read your posts. Might you write some remarks about 
Leibniz' concept of pre-established harmony?

On 8/10/2012 8:53 AM, Roger wrote:

Hence I follow Leibniz, even though he's difficult and some say
contradictory. That agent or soul or self you have is your
monad, the only (alhough indirectly) perceiving/acting/feeling
agent in all of us, but currently missing in neuroscience and




"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." 
~ Francis Bacon

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to