On Sunday, September 2, 2012 2:20:49 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: > > > *Toward emulating life with a monadic computer* > ** > In a previous discussion we showed that the natural numbers qualify as > Leibnizian monads, suggesting the possibility that other mathematical > forms might similarly be treated as monadic structures. > > At the same time, Leibniz's monadology describes a computational > architecture that is capable of emulating not only the dynamic physical > universe, but a biological universe as well. > > In either case, the entire universe might be envisioned as a gigantic > digital golem, a living figure whose body consists of a categorical > nonliving substructure and whose mind/brain is the what Leibniz called > the "supreme > monad". The supreme monad might be thought of as a monarch, > since it governs the operation of its passive monadic substructures > according to a "preestablished harmony." In addition, each monad in the > system > would possess typical monadic substructures, and possibly further monadic > substructures wuithin this, depending spending on the level of complexity > desired. > > Without going into much detail at this point, Leibniz's monadology might > be considered > as the operating system of such a computer, with the central processing > chip > as its supreme monad. This CPU continually updates all of the monads > in the system according the following scheme. Only the CPU is active, > while all of the sub-structure monads (I think in a logical, tree-like > structure) are passive. > Each monad contains a dynamically changing image (a "reflection") of all > of the > other monads, taken from its particular point of view. These are > called its perceptions, > which might be thought of as records of the state of any given monad at any > given time. This state comprising an image of the entire universe of > monads, > constantly being updated by the Supreme monad or CPU. In addition to > the perceptions, each monad also has a constantly changing set of > appetites. > And all of these are coorddinated to fit a pre-established harmony. > > It might be that the pre-established harmony is simply what is happening > in the world outside the computer. > > Other details of this computer should be forthcoming. >
First I would say that numbers are not monads because numbers have no experience. They have no interior or exterior realism, but rather are the interstitial shadows of interior-exterior events. Numbers are a form of common sense, but they are not universal sense and they are limited to a narrow channel of sense which is dependent upon solid physicality to propagate. You can't count with fog. Secondly I think that the monadology makes more sense as the world outside the computer. Time and space are computational constructs generated by the meta-juxtaposition of sense*(matter+entropy) and (matter/matter)-sense. Matter is the experience of objecthood. Numbers are the subjective-ized essence of objects Craig. > > > > > Roger Clough, [email protected] <javascript:> > 9/2/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/s2J5aGxCEigJ. 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.
