# Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology

```Hi Stephen P. King

The tree structure comes from the predicate logic that monads follow.
All predicates are in the subject (a substance, a monad). And predicates can't
be subjects.
A sufficient or complete set of predicates makes up a substance.```
```
To me this would be a simple tree structure, but I am still a novice at
understanding Leibniz.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012
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
Time: 2012-08-20, 11:44:25
Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology

Hi Roger,

On 8/20/2012 6:48 AM, Roger wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

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

I like puns! They show us that existence does not just have one
side/form/pattern/perspective...

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.

OK, I agree with the spirit of this statement but I am trying to find the
canonical mereology of the monads. We can get lost in the many rabbit trails of
concepts chains that this idea can lead off to... In the words of Red Leader "
Stay on Target!" ;-)

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

Yes, but I think that it is a non-Archimedean arrangement and, to be
specific, an ultrametric that can be represented as a Bethe lattice.

Each "node" represents a monad and the edges represent connections to other
monads that it is partly bisimilar to. All composition is given in terms of
relative wholes, as there are no "parts" in the Archimedean sense in a
The guiding principle is "all things are monads or "parts" of a monad. The
"parts" here is a perspective issue that occurs when one monad has only a
partial simulation of another... In more theological terms we might say that
the Godhead is immanent in all monads as it is all of its aspects.

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,

Yes, exactly, but this "being constantly and instantly updated" is not a
communication scheme as we think in classical terms with signals traveling to
and fro; it is the moving in and out of synchrony of monads. The key is that
there is no exact and finitely representable orchestration of this movement
(Bohm's implicate order was an attempt to capture this idea, but Bohm missed
the non-archemedean aspect and thus misunderstood the mereology problem!!),
there is only finite and inexact approximations.

So, to the degree of their logical distance from one another,
their intelligence, and  clarity of vision,  each monad is
omniscient.

Yes, and this "omniscience", I believe, is captured by the superposition
aspect of a QM wavefuction. I use the Net of Indra concept to illustrate this.
Each monad, like the jewels in Indra's net, is a reflection (simulation!) of
all others but never exactly as exact reflection would be identity (exact
bisimilarity).

Personally  I use the analogy of the holograph,
each part contining the whole, but with limited resolution.

Yes exactly (pun!), this does a good job representing the phase angle
canonical form of this idea. It must be understood that there is no one "true
picture" of this. We have to consider all of the versions of it as we see the
properties of objects are dependent on the means with which we observe them.
This is the implication of the saying: Nature (God) does not have a preferred
observational basis. What we need to define this mathematically is to find the
canonical form.

Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/20/2012
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
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
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,
(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

Roger , rclo...@verizon.net

--
Onward!

Stephen

"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

--
Onward!

Stephen

"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