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, rclo...@verizon.net
"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 

    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" 

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.




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