On 9/17/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King

Monads are not rigidly separated.
So change in one mind is reflected in all,
the extent being how capable the others are of reading
the content and their similarity to the subject.
Dear Roger,

Your defiction is what we get if we ignore the computational resources that are required by a mind. I am taking the resource requirement into account and thus showing that the mind does not 'always" reflect all others. Only God's mind is free of contraint as it is the totality of existence itself.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
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: 2012-09-16, 11:34:14
Subject: Re: The poverty of computers

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