Hi Stephen P. King 

Physical Laws must be supernatural.
You can't measure them. 

Roger Clough, 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: 2012-08-21, 15:39:08
Subject: Re: divine selection versus natural selection

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. 

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 

    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> 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
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


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.

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
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to