Dear Roger,

From what I have studied of Leibniz' Monadology and commentary by many authors, it seems to me that all appearances of interactions is given purely in terms of synchronizations of the internal action of the monads. This synchronization or co-ordination seems very similar to Bruno's Bp&p idea but for an apriori given plurality of Monads. I identify the computational aspect of the Monad with a unitary evolution transformation (in a linear algebra on topological spaces). I have been investigating whether or not it might be possible to define the mereology of monads in terms of the way that QM systems become and unbecome entangled with each other. Have you seen any similar references to this latter idea?

On 8/18/2012 11:58 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
In the end, as Leibniz puts it, you couldn't tell the difference, they would
"seem" to have windows, but actually, since substances,
being logical entities, cannot actually interact,
they all must communicate instead through the supreme monad,
(the CPU) which presumably reads and writes on them.
I think they are like subprograms, with storage files,
which can't do anything by themselves, but must be
 operated on by the CPU according to their
current perceptions (stored state data) which
reflect all of the other stored state date in
the universe of monads.
Roger , <>



"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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to