On 9/16/2012 8:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King

Not sure I understand your objection, but
faith, being subjective (hence personal)
is at least to first order principally in one individual.

Dear Roger,

    There is more to say!

At the same time, however, since
Mind is nonlocal, there has to be some
spillover from other minds of like thinking.

Yes! But we need a way of modeling this idea. I have tried with a concept of "bisimulation" but it seems that the symbolic representation that some friends and I have put together is incomprehensible and anti-intuitive for others... :_( I think of this "spillover" as the ability to have multiple expression "of the same thing". We can represent this as what occurs when several independent computers, each with their own language and grammar, have an equivalence relation such that something that one does (computes) is "the same as" something that another does (computes). If two computers perform exactly the same set of computations then we say that they are *exactly* bisimilar. If there is only a few or one computation that they can both perform then there is a bisimulation between them. We then ask if it is possible for that one computation (that is bisimilar) in each to be related (by some transformation(s)) to some or all of the other computations (that are in the collection of possible computations ( a "repertoire") that each can perform). If there does exist a transformation or sequence of transformations, then there is a way of transforming the pair into each other iff that transformation(s) can be implemented on both of them.

According to the monadology, also, an
individual with his "perceptions"
has a limited ability to see into the

I see this as the result of the limits on computational resources available to the observer (monad). I can see the past because I have (locally) already generated my computational simulation of it and have a trace of that computation in my memory. I cannot observe what I have not computed yet!

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."

    Am I making any sense at all?




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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to