Hi Stephen P. King Thinking about mereology....and Leibniz...
Since a monad is a whole, it can't have parts, so you can't break it into parts. That's in fact the definition of a monad, a whole without parts. So while some, including Leibniz, speak of man or whatever as being a "colony of monads", I am having difficulty seeing that, if a monad has no parts. Also, Leibniz himself speaks of monads within monads within monads, so I obviously am missing something. It may be that you speak only over a range of resolution. It's still a puzzle. Roger Clough, [email protected] 9/18/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-17, 11:11:30 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On 9/17/2012 9:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Forgive me if I bring up Leibniz again, but to my mind he gives the most thorough descriptions as to how the world works. And so logical that you can figure out many things on your own. Dear Roger, I too have found Leibniz' Monadology to be a wonderful theory. I have my copy of Nicholas Rescher's translation and annotated Monadology always on my desk. One reason is that it sets up a mereology that is very different from the relation of wholes and parts that is implicit in classical physics and "common" intuition. Monads are capsules of objects of the mind consisting of mental substances if they have only 1 part, A monad is a complete whole and always is a complete whole. If you break a monad you will get two complete monads. If you combine two monads you will get a complete monad. I see the mind in the same way and thus a monad is the perfect model of a mind. and I suggest that composite substances must be composite monads No. That would be a violation of the complete wholeness principle. I have a question. In some religions there is the word "Holy". What does it mean to you? Being nonextended, and also since there is no such thing as space, they have no locations. So they are nonlocal. They are mental. And they are alive. I use a different set of definitions for those words. I see a QM system as a Monad. Internally, it is never seen. Internally, it is a mind. Externally, it appears as a center of mass. Each monad has either a soul (animals and vegetables), a spirit (man), or, like rocks is a "bare naked monad" and has what I would call a dark, drowsy soul. All things are either a monad or part of the surface of a monad. We need to learn to see things from a point of view that is not bound to 2d surfaces bounding 3d volumes to understand fully what this means. -- 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 [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.
