Hi Craig Weinberg I obviously misunderstood your point. I still don't.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 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: 2012-09-04, 14:58:37 Subject: Re: Re: monads as numbers 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 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 Receiver: everything-list 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. 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/-/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. -- 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.
