Hi Roger,

Not sure what you are getting at. We can't see any usefulness for eating 
chocolate until the bar is gone, but we still do it.

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 7:56:45 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> I can't see any usefulness for a computer or calculator
> where the same number is recalculated over and over.
> Think of a Turing tape running through a processor.
>  
>  
>  
> Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net <javascript:>
> 9/4/2012 
> 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 <javascript:> 
> *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> 
> *Time:* 2012-09-03, 11:12:36
> *Subject:* Re: monads as numbers
>
>  Hi Roger,
>
> I think of number as the conceptual continuity between the behaviors of 
> physical things - whether it is the interior view of things as experiences 
> through time or the exterior view of experiences as things. Numbers don't 
> fly by in a computation, that's a cartoon. All that happens is that 
> something which is much smaller and faster than we are, like a 
> semiconductor or neuron, is doing some repetitive, sensorimotive behavior 
> which tickles our own sense and motive in a way that we can understand and 
> control. Computation doesn't exist independently as an operation in space, 
> it is a common sense of matter, just as we are - but one does not reduce to 
> the other. Feeling, emotion, and thought does not have to be made of 
> computations, they can be other forms of sensible expression. Counting is 
> one of the things that we, and most everything can do in one way or 
> another, but nothing can turn numbers into anything other than more numbers 
> except non-numerical sense.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Monday, September 3, 2012 9:53:21 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
>>
>>  Hi Craig Weinberg
>>  
>> Sorry. I guess I should call them monadic numbers. Not numbers as monads,
>> but monads as numbers.
>>  
>> The numbers I am thinking of as monads are those flying by in a particular
>> computation.   Monads are under constant change. As to history, 
>> perceptions,
>> appetites, those would be some king of context as in a subprogram
>> which coud be stored in files.
>>  
>> 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 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2012-09-02, 08:28:10
>> *Subject:* Re: Toward emulating life with a monadic computer
>>
>>  
>>
>> 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
>>> 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 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.
>>
>> -- 
> 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/-/wG3SzF54AHgJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/y-jzVSfeHfkJ.
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