The monads of string theory each have many parts. To begin with they have 6 dimensions constrained by higher-order EM flux winding through 500 topological holes. They are definitely extended being 1000 Planck lengths in diameter and in an array throughout the universe at a density of about 10^90/cc. IMO science beats philosophy. Richard Ref: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Calabi-Yau_manifold#Calabi-Yau_manifolds_in_string_theory
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote: > Hi Craig Weinberg > > According to the Monadology, all monads are alive. > Even rocks, which are nearly dead. > > Leibniz is indeed frustratingly difficult, > but contrary to (some of ) your comments on the Monadology > on the link below, I can't recall a single error. > > Just to take your criticism of Monodology 1: > > > "1. My topic here will be the monad, which is just a simple > substance. By calling it ‘simple’ I mean that it *has* no parts, > though it can be a part of something composite. > > It is a bit confusing right off the bat. To say that a something is a > substance in a colloquial sense implies already that is a ‘thing’ distinct > from other things. What I am after is a much deeper simplicity. To me a > true monad could only be a boundaryless unity. An > everythingness-nothingness ‘carrier-tone’ of experiential readiness from > which all experiences are diffracted (divided from within, as ‘chips off > the old block’, so to speak). This is what I mean by the Big > Diffraction<http://multisenserealism.com/about/#jp-carousel-362>. > The monad itself has no parts, but its only nature is the possibility that > it imparts. My version of monad does not ‘exist’ as a simple substance but > rather it insists as the simplicity and essential wholeness of all > experiences. It is sense." > > It turns out that, upon further analysis, all substances have to be > inextended, > > because all material substances, being extended, are divisible, which > > in the end gives you nothing. As to the fundamental particles, > > my footnote here is that while these are not divisble, > > the Uncertainty Principle in the end gives you nothing fixed you can point > > to, so even these are not substances. > > > > > > > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 9/3/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > *Time:* 2012-08-31, 14:14:50 > *Subject:* Re: While computers are causal, life is not causal. > > > > On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:30:12 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: >> >> Hi Craig Weinberg >> >> While computers are causal, perception is not causal. >> Nothing that living things do is causal. They have an >> uncaused first or governing cause called the self. >> Thus life does not have to be causal and isn't. >> > > I don't see it as being so cut and dried. What about a virus? Is that a > living thing? How about a crystal? I see more of a step-like spectrum from > physical to chemical to organic to biological to zoological and > anthropological. Living things seem like they do some causal things to me? > They seek food when their bodies run low. They grow hair when and where > their genes cause it to grow. > > I agree that perception is not causal, although the elaboration of > perception from one individual or species to another can be causal. When we > say life, I think that we just mean phenomena which we can relate to and > identify with - and that capacity to identify or disidentify is there for a > reason. I think though that the reason is not absolute but relative. All > living organisms could disappear from the cosmos forever and the universe > would still be full of memory, pattern, and experience...just on scales of > time and space that are very unfamiliar to us. > > >> Monads operate in such a fashion. They are not >> causal except if that is desired or needed. >> >> Huge difference. >> >> > > Did Leibniz think that non-living things were not composed of monads? > > Here is my look at Monadology if you are interested: > http://multisenserealism.com/2012/07/14/notes-on-monadology/ > > Craig > > >> >> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >> 8/31/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him >> so that everything could function." >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> *From:* Craig Weinberg >> *Receiver:* everything-list >> *Time:* 2012-08-31, 08:12:21 >> *Subject:* Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence >> >> >> >> On Friday, August 31, 2012 6:08:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:07, Roger Clough wrote: >>> >>> Hi Bruno Marchal >>> >>> The burden of proof, IMHO lies on those who claim that >>> computers are alive and conscious. What evidence is there for that ? >>> >>> >>> The causal nature of all observable brains components. (empirical >>> evidence) >>> >>> >>> >> What about the biological nature of all observable brain components? Much >> more compelling since it is a change in the biological status of the brain >> as a whole living organ which marks the difference between life and death, >> not the presence or absence of logic circuits. >> >> Craig >> >> -- >> 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/-/**M49PjD4y4QwJ<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/M49PjD4y4QwJ> >> . >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@** >> googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >> group/everything-list?hl=en<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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rypjXKjozuYJ. > 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. > -- 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.
