Hi Stephen P. King " Leibniz propounds a pluralistic metaphysical idealism by reducing the reality of the universe to centres of force, which are all ultimately spiritual in their nature. Every centre of force is a substance, an individual, and is different from other centres of force. Such centres of force, Leibniz calls monads. These forces are unextended, not subject to division in space. None, excepting, of course, God, can destroy these monads, and so they are considered to be immortal in essence. Though quantitatively, the monads a.."
Roger Clough, [email protected] 8/23/2012 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: 2012-08-23, 07:17:57 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms Hi Roger, The unextended aspect of monads is just an expression of the fact that within the monadology, it is not embedded in a space and thus has no measurable size.WE cannot think of monads as we think of atoms in a void. The idea is that we can recover the concept of an external space as a collection of possible locations purely in terms of internal states. On 8/23/2012 6:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Monads are inextended, so can have no spatial presence. Roger Clough, [email protected] 8/23/2012 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: 2012-08-22, 10:58:42 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms Dear Roger, You are being inconsistent to the very definition of a monad. They do not have an "outside" that could ever been seen from a point of view and thus to think of them as if they do, such as the concept of a space full of them (which implies mutual displacement) if to think of them as atoms that are exclusively "outside view" defined. Within the Monadology all concepts that imply an "outside view" are strictly defined in terms of appearances from the inside. On 8/22/2012 9:09 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Space is not empty. It is full of monads at 10^90/cc. These are the building blocks of space in integration-information theory. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You need to study the monadology. And the history of modern physics. Space does not physically exist for L (as for us) because it is empty, as the Milligan-whatshisname experiment proved a century ago. The notion of an ether is a fantasy. It doesn't exist. Photons just go from A to B through a quantum or mathematical wavefield, not an actual one. Roger Clough, [email protected] 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: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 07:06:07 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance ofthunderstorms Roger, " monads are by definition nonlocal " does not mean that " space does not exist". Your logic is faulty. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote: Hi benjayk In monadic theory,?ince space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad). The clarity of intercommunication will of course depend, of course, on the sensitivity of the monads, their intelligence, and how "near" (resonant) their partners are, as well as other factors?uch as whether or not its a clear?onadic weather day. Roger Clough, [email protected] 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: benjayk Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-21, 17:24:01 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers meekerdb wrote: > > "This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being." > > The Computer > He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal). But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we program into it?). So still, it is less capable than a human. -- -- 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 protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
