Hi Stephen P. King 

I must be missing something.

Overlapping was just a rhetorical word since monads 
are beyond spacetime. 

Inextended beings such as mind don't need code to function.
Does a daisy run on code ?

Size and number do not seem to be to be limits for 
monads to do what they do. Certainly Platonia can contain infinities.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/8/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-07, 11:18:15
Subject: Re: The universe as a collection of an infinite number 
ofpointscalledmonads


On 9/7/2012 10:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 

As I see it, if there is an infinite collection of (monadic) points,
all future things foreseen (as in "pre-established harmony")
then nothing new can ever be created or destroyed, things
(including thoughts and people)  just blossom like plants from 
seeds and eventually die, but always in the same monad.

Hi Roger,

    Here is the problem: a point has no extension therefore it cannot code 
anything other than its presence or non-presence by its absence. To think of 
"all future things foreseen (as in "pre-established harmony")" there must be a 
capacity of each and every monad to have an image of some sort of things, 
future, past, present, distant, close, whatever. It must have the equivalent of 
potentially infinite memory. This cannot occur for a point. Therefore, a monad 
cannot be defined as a point, but it can be similar to a point in having no 
exterior extensions; it only has internal aspects. All considerations of things 
"exterior" to a monad are merely defined in terms of relations within, between 
and among its internal aspects.



Notice that the phrase "pre-established harmony" just popped 
naturally into my mind when I visualized the points as overlaid.
Studying Leibniz is like that, it is so logical that it will allow you 
to explore without a guide.
    
    It seems likely that you are merely parroting words without fully 
comprehending their use or meaning.




Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-07, 10:22:37
Subject: Re: The universe as a collection of an infinite number of 
pointscalledmonads


On 9/7/2012 8:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 

I solved this problem my own way by simply asssuming that the universe
from the beginning and  before, as well as now and forever,
exists as an infinite collection of points (monads). 


Hi Roger,

    I agree with this.    



So no problem
with the creation of new things.

    No, novelty is not a priori definable, by its very definition it cannot be 
considered to be given from the beginning! OTOH, we could stipulate that 
novelty is a concept that only individual monads that are not identical to each 
other can have, then novelty and "creation of new things" in general can be 
seen in a logically consistent  fashion as local transient aspects and not 
pre-ordained  or essence.


In principle they always were
and simply grow or unfold when the time calls for it, then
roll or fold up or whatever at the end of their useful lives.
    
    Surely!



In this veiw of reality, all of reality always consists in monadic space
as an overlapping infinite set of points.

    No, that is a contradiction of terms. Monads cannot be defined as "an 
overlapping infinite set of points" because "points" by definition have no 
extension and therefore can never overlap with each other. There is no such 
thing as a " monadic space" which might act as a container of multiple and 
distinct monads. Monads, as L defined them, cannot act or exist in that manner. 
Frankly, L's speculations about the "exterior aspects of Monads", found later 
on in his Monadology, papers, may be the consequence of drinking too much wine 
as they are completely inconsistent with his careful initial definitions of 
monads. We are all finite and fallible, even geniuses like Leibniz. :-( 


-- 
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
-- 
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.




-- 
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

-- 
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.

Reply via email to