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, 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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/s2J5aGxCEigJ.
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