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, [email protected] <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, [email protected] >> 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, [email protected] >>> 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. >> >> -- > 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 [email protected]<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <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 [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.
