Hi Stephen P. King No problem.
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, 08:26:50 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms Hi Roger, Indeed! This corresponds to non-distributive logical lattices.But we still need more details. The best attempt that i have seen on deriving extension was Roger Penrose' spin network idea. On 8/23/2012 8:04 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Some entities (like my mouse) are extended in space, others (like what I am thinking) are not. It isn't either/or, it''s both/and. 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, 11:23:08 Subject: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms Dear Roger, A lot of people have a very hard time comprehending abstract ideas, they are stuck thinking of them as physical things. A small minority of people are stuck thinking of concepts as purely mental. It is necessary to consider both of these points of view and be able to understand the difference between them. The best analogy of the relation between them is the inside and outside views of a volume filled with hollow spheres.Waht happens if the spheres are actually Klein Bottles? On 8/22/2012 9:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I'm getting tired of trying to explain this to you. You have to do more thinking. Monads have no extension. And they have no location nor time. So they are merely theoretical, extensionless, outside of spacetime. You have to have extension to physically exist. 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, 09:09:31 Subject: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chanceofthunderstorms 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. -- V -- 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.
