Hi Stephen P. King
Physical Laws must be supernatural. You can't measure them. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/22/2012 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 Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 15:39:08 Subject: Re: divine selection versus natural selection On 8/21/2012 8:12 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, 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. Hi Richard, 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 only theory of truth and I am arguing for immanence *and* transcendence within an over all Panentheism theory. My argument revolves around the problem of interaction between multiple minds. My solution is not very different from Spinoza'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. Richard On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote: 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 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: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-20, 11:18:57 Subject: Re: divine selection versus natural selection Roger, Divine selection and natural selection are sourced, however at differing levels of information integration, in the "universal?YM monad?ubspace". Belief can also be a product of science. I believe science. Richard On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Roger <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote: 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.?e have nothing to do with it, at least that isa what we Lutherns believe. 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." -- 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 email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.