Hi Stephen P. King 

Right. "The world is filled with monads"was just a way of saying things, just a 
rhetorical phrase.

All physical things in the world are substances rather than monads.
If you can measure it, it's not a monad. If you can think of it, in
some cases (see below) it is a monad.

Monads are simply mental points in ideal space, which have a potential 
driving force, such as the driving force of life (called entelechy).
A desire to realize its own potential. So monads can be said to be alive.

Monads have to be uniform substances that one could use as the
subject of a sentence.  As as thought of, as intended, with no parts. 
Personally I
would correct that to say "no parts at the level of image magnification 
intended."
This is one of the main difficulties in understanding Leibniz. If you think
of Socrates as a whole, not separately of organs, etc., that Socrates
would be a monad.  A monad has to be, as they say, "the whole
enchilada". 

I would say thus that I am a monad, as are you. 

Monads and snd the substances they refer to are infinite in variety.

Space and time are excluded from this as space and time separately are not in 
spacetime.
 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
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, 08:28:33
Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology


Hi Roger,

    I agree in spirit with you but cringe at the use of the word "filled". Do 
you have any ideas as to the mereological relation between monads?

On 8/23/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Richard, 
 
There are an infinite number of different monads, since
the world is filled with them and each is a
different perspective on the whole of the rest. 
Not only that, but they keep changing, as
all life does.
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
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, 11:24:16
Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology


    What exactly determines the 10^500 number?


On 8/22/2012 9:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

That there are 10^500 possible configurations of the monads. 
Scientist believe that each possible universe 
contains but one kind of monad..


On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi Richard Ruquist 
 
What is the landscape problem ?
 
 
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: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-21, 21:26:58
Subject: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology


Stephan, 


I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct
consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant 
varied monotonically across the universe.
Richard


On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

?teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. ?rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009. 


?ovtum PK, Son DT & Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum
Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231. 


? Good! Now to see if there any any other possible explanations that do not 
have the landscape problem...




On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma 
already found at the LHC and several other sites.


Hi Richard,


? Could you link some sources on this?




On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:

On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 
Hi guys,
Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist--?nstead, they represent things that 
exist.
Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations
might describe something physical.


The equations of string theory describe strings. So how does it follow that 
strings aren't real. That's like saying a sentence that describes my house 
shows that my house isn't real.

I agree that string theory (or any other theory) is a model of reality and not 
reality itself. But, if it's correct, it refers to reality or at least some 
part of reality - like, "My house is green." refers to a part of reality, but 
"My house is blue." does not.

Brent



? When and if string theory makes a prediction that is then found to have a 
physical demonstration we might be more confident that it is useful as a 
physics theory and not just an exercise in beautiful advanced mathematics. The 
LHC is looking for such evidence... 





For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house,
it is my address. 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 




--






-- 
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 everything-list@googlegroups.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.

Reply via email to