On 8/21/2012 8:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Roger,
> According to string theory themonads do not "only see the external
> world through the eyes of the supreme monad
> (or CPU)". Rather in string theory each individual, discrete, and
> distinct monad sees the entire universe instantly but without complete
> resolution. However integration of information allows for improved
> resolution.

Hi Richard,

This is the same thing that Roger and I are claiming.

> In string theory there is no supreme monad. Rather any such thing must
> be an intergrated or collective effect of many monads. Leibniz was not
> entirely correct. But he got the most important characteristic, that
> monads are so tiny as to be invisible. And that monads control the
> universe via the laws and constants of nature.

The idea of the supreme is a figure of speech... We can approximate the
supreme with limits...

> Also there is no evidence in string theory that monads come in 3
> types. But the fact that string theory predicts the 3 generations of
> particles in the Standard Model, suggests that it's possible that
> monads come in 3 varieties. But those varieties would have had to be
> available in the primordial, uninflated set of 10 or more dimensions
> Richard

Please read more detail on string theory, I hate to see you continue in
such a mistake. :_( String theory is materialist nonsense.

> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net
> <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>> wrote:
>     Hi Stephen P. King
>     To Idealists, the "real" is the idea or concept of a thing,
>     The thing as it it appears to us is a phenomenon.
>     This inversion of common sense was made by Leibniz
>     in order to get rid of the mind-body problem. There's
>     no problem really if both are just concepts. They don't
>     actually interact, but they can be conceived as interacting.
>     There is a tricky point, and is I think a principal reason why L can
>     be so confusing---- and critics have observed that even Leibniz can
>     sometimes confuse the real with the phenomenal.
>     1) First of all, Idealists such as Leibniz. Berkeley and Kant
>     consider
>     IDEAS to be real, not the material or other phenomena they describe.
>     For these guys, the descriptions are real, not the things or
>     phenomena they describe,
>     which admittedly are transitory.
>     Which is NOT to say that to Leibniz, the world out there is a
>     hallucination.
>     No, it is just like it looks and he calls the world we see,
>     although phenomenal, "well-founded phenomena".
>     You can still stub your toe and feel pain, billiard balls will all
>     collide as
>     usual, etc. To all purposes, everything will seem normal.
>     2) The monads can only see the external world through the eyes of
>     the supreme monad
>     (or CPU). This is not direct sight, for one thing monads afre not
>     spaced in space or time
>     (perhaps heaven is like this ?). They don't really see the outside
>     world,
>     they only see an infinite number of of mirrors, those being
>     reflections of the
>     monad in question from the [points of view of the other monads.
>     in the mirrors or "perceptions" of
>     Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
>     8/21/2012
>     Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
>     everything could function."

>     snip



"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