Roger,

It seems to me that you are preaching the religion of monads based on
Leibniz.
Thus as in most religions, there is no opportunity for critical thinking
and research.

Almost all of what you say of monads below disagrees with string theory.

BTW I do not have any questions you are tired of answering,
 I only have answers for you.
Richard

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  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 <stephe...@charter.net>
> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> *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 <stephe...@charter.net>
> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> *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 <yann...@gmail.com>
>> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>> *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:
>>>
>>> 燬teinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. 燼rXiv:nucl-ex/09031471,
>>> 2009.
>>>
>>>
>>> 燢ovtum PK, Son DT & Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting
>>> Quantum
>>> Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231.
>>>
>>>
>>> 牋 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,
>>>>
>>>> 牋 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--爄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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 牋 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.
>

-- 
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