Hi Stephen P. King 

Mereology is part and parcel of Leibniz's system, to use a limp pun.

1) Although unproven, but because God is good while the world is contingent 
(imperfect, misfitting),
Leibniz, like Augustine and Paul, believed that things as a whole work for 
good, but unfortunately not all parts 
have to be equally good. This is essentially his theodicy.

2).  Everything is nonlocal: The monads are arranged like a tree structure 
leading up to
the Supreme Monad, above which is God, causing all things to happen
and perceiving all things. 

Now Man, being near the top of the Great Chain of Being, and the 
"perceptions" of each monad are being constantly and instantly 
updated to reflect the perceptions all of the other monads in the universe,
So, to the degree of their logical distance from one another,
their intelligence, and  clarity of vision,  each monad is
omniscient. Personally  I use the analogy of the holograph,
each part contining the whole, but wqith limited resolution.

Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-18, 17:34:30
Subject: Re: Monads as computing elements

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 

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 , rclo...@verizon.net



"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