On 8/21/2012 8:12 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the
existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the
collective set of monads.
Please calm down a bit and understand that it is not possible for a
single finite mind to comprehend, much less, "know" in a way that can be
explained to the average "grandmother", the delicate balance of the
monadology. Even Leibniz himself fudged his explanation!
The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants
of nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of COMP
is. They may even be related except for the multiverse aspect of COMP.
I agree with this remark 100%!
One brief comment on the tittle of this thread. Is it necessary for
"Divine Selection" and "Natural Section" to be two mutually
contradictory possible explanations? How is God not immanent in Nature?
It is only when we push transcendence that we have serious problems.
BTW, this is another version of the disagreement that I am having
with Bruno. He is pushing a transcendence
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_%28religion%29> only theory
of truth and I am arguing forimmanence
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence> *and* transcendence within an
over all Panentheism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism> theory.
My argument revolves around the problem of interaction between multiple
minds. My solution is not very different from Spinoza
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza-modal/>'s but I seek to frame
it using computer science, as that allows a finite mathematical model.
Bruno's idea seeks a reduction of all interactions to being wholly
within the Supremum and all appearances or interaction and actions in
general (including physics) to "dreams of numbers". The problem with
this is that Transcendance models fall apart when they try to explain
the necessity of finite appearance.
Transcendence alone theories just postulate that all objects have
properties in an inherent way because of they are "in reality just
shadows of the Forms" and "Forms" are the essence of the properties
themselves. This works and sound fine until one tries to construct a
model of interactions using that theory. Doing so inevitably causes
contradictions to arise that cannot be solved by appeals to measures or
any other hand-waving or question-begging device. Please think about
this carefully, the reasoning is very subtle, but unassailable.
*_/How might the "shadows of the Forms" cast shadows of their own on
each other?/_* What about shadows of shadow of shadows of shadows of ...
What prevents the infinite regress? AFAIK, only the limitations of
actual physical resources cut off the computations such that endless
loops of self-modeling recursions never happen. This possibility was,
sadly, missed by Dennett in his valiant attempt to save materialism.
Computations having to actually solve an NP-Complete problem with finite
resources is the requirement that eliminates Bruno's measure problem,
but he refuses to see this.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Richard Ruquist
I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion
with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper
concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know
what the meaning of anything is. Period.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto: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:* Richard Ruquist <mailto:yann...@gmail.com>
*Time:* 2012-08-20, 11:18:57
*Subject:* Re: divine selection versus natural selection
Divine selection and natural selection are sourced,�
however at differing levels of information integration,
in the "universal燙YM monad爏ubspace".
Belief can also be a product of science.
I believe science.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger <rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Bruno Marchal
According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or
trust, and that trust
does not come from you, it is a gift from God.燱e have
nothing to do with it,
at least that isa what we Lutherns believe.�
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent
him so everything could function."
"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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at