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


>  Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net <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 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to