How do you know that? On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist > > Monads are simply a smart bunch of ASCII characters. > > 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:* Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> > *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> > *Time:* 2012-08-23, 07:05:17 > *Subject:* Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with > achanceofthunderstorms > > Roger, > > Please tell us how you know that. > > If you refer back to Leibniz, > then you are treating > science like a religion, > making Liebniz into a prophet > that must be believed. > Richard > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> >> *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 <[email protected]> >>> *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> >>> *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,�since 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�such as whether or not its >>>> a clear�monadic 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 <[email protected]> >>>> *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> >>>> *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. >> > > -- > 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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
