I find it interesting that according to my Roman Catholic professor
theologian friend,
 God has intention but but intelligence. That would seem to be consistent
with what you say below. I'll have to ask him if the church came to that
viewpoint do to the " ordinary problem of solipsism".

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Stephen P. King <>wrote:

>  Dear Roger,
>     I only see one glaring gap in your explanation here: the chain of
> non-interaction leads all the way up to the supremum where God is
> essentially and effectively (not)interacting with itself. Is this not the
> very definition of Solipsism? How is the problem of solipsism not even
> infinitely more acute for God? God has no peers, so it naturally implies
> that the ordinary problem of solipsism - what does one human solipsist say
> to another? - is a mute point, but somewhere and somehow the appearance of
> plurality of entities must appear in order for us to explain appearences.
> This is the very same question that I keep asking Bruno and he seems to not
> understand the question: How does a plurality of minds emerge from the One
> such that they have an appearance of interactions without falling into the
> morass of allowing for everythign and thus, ultimately, explaining nothing?
>     It seems to me that Leibniz was working out the Everything vs. Nothing
> problem of existence from a different point of view with the monadology.
> On 8/24/2012 7:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
> True, materials don't actually interact in Idealism, but the Supreme
> intelligence
> insures that the same result happens. In other words, you can't tell the
> difference.
> So at least in one place Leibniz says, "True, they don't actually interact,
> because ideas as substances cannot interact, but there's no harm in
> saying
> that they do."
> Roger Clough,
> 8/24/2012
> 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, 16:39:18
> *Subject:* Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof
>  On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and
> > sequences of numbers, making the "body problem" into a problem of
> > arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the universal
> > machine, made finite thanks to the modal logic above, and thanks to
> > the Solovay arithmetical completeness theorem.
> >
> > You cannot both claim that there is a flaw, and at the same time
> > invoke your dyslexia to justify you don't do the technical work to
> > present it.
> Dear Bruno,
>      It is the body problem that is your problem. There is no solution
> for it in strict immaterialism. Immaterials cannot interact, they have
> nothing with which to "touch" each other. All they can do is imagine the
> possibility in the sense of a representation of the logical operation of
> "imagining the possibility of X" (a string of recursively enumerable
> coding the computational simulation of X).
>      This would be fine and you do a wonderful job of dressing this up
> in your work, but the body problem is just another name for the
> concurrency problem. It is the scarcity of physical resources that
> forces solutions to be found and this is exactly what Pratt shows us how
> to work out. Mutual consistency restrictions is the dual to resource
> availability!
>      My dyslexia prevents me from writing long strings of symbolic
> logical codes, but I can write English (and some Spanish) well enough to
> communicate with you and I can read and comprehend complex texts very
> well. ;-)
>      By the way, I only asked from a verbal -> written English version
> of your symbols strings, not a condensed explanation of it. I do
> appreciate what you wrote, but it was not what I was asking for.
> G is
> [](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)
> []p -> [][]p
> []([]p -> p) -> []p
> with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A
> S4Grz is
> [](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)
> []p -> [][]p
> []([](p -> []p) -> p) -> p
> with the rules A, A->B / B and A / []A
>      These symbols have verbal words associated with them, no? If you
> where to read of these sentences aloud. What English sounds would come
> out of your mouth? Could those words be transcribed here for the readers
> of the Everything List? What word corresponds, for instance, to "->" ?
> Implies?
> --
> --
> Onward!
> Stephen
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to