Hi Bruno Marchal 

A) I do see the phrase "an infinite number of monads" at numerous places on the 
    So I assume that there are an infinite number of monads, or at least as 
many monads
    as there are corporeal bodies in the universe.

B) On the other hand, 'each created Monad represents the whole Universe',
    which implies that an individual monad contains an infinity of other, 
universally distinct, monads,
    which must then in turn contain an infinite number of monads, etc.

C) Yet on the large scale there is only one monad, which platonists call the 
    Leibniz says thus that everything is connected (although non-interacting).

D) There is no way a monad can be created or destroyed through
    natural means* (but presumably can be by God). But let us say there are a 
    fixed number of monads (I don't know if that can be infinite, I am not a 

*from the Monadology:

1. The monad, of which we will speak here, is nothing else than a simple 
substance, which goes to make up compounds; by simple, we mean without parts. 

2. There must be simple substances because there are compound substances; for 
the compound is nothing else than a collection or aggregatum of simple 

3. Now, where there are no constituent parts there is possible neither 
extension, nor form, nor divisibility. These monads are the true atoms of 
nature, and, in a word, the elements of things. 

4. Their dissolution, therefore, is not to be feared and there is no way 
conceivable by which a simple substance can perish through natural means. 

5. For the same reason there is no way conceivable by which a simple substance 
might, through natural means, come into existence, since it can not be formed 
by composition. 

6. We may say then, that the existence of monads can begin or end only all at 
once, that is to say, the monad can begin only through creation and end only 
through annihilation. 
Compounds, however, begin or end by parts. 

7. There is also no way of explaining how a monad can be altered or changed in 
its inner being by any other created thing, 
since there is no possibility of transposition within it, nor can we conceive 
of any internal 
movement which can be produced, directed, increased or diminished within it, 
such as can take place in the case of 
compounds where a change can occur among the parts. The monads have no windows 
through which anything may come in or go out. 
The Attributes cannot detach themselves or go forth from the substances, as 
could sensible species of the Schoolmen. In 
the same way neither substance nor attribute can enter from without into a 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 

----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-10-12, 06:28:03 
Subject: Re: I think Monads may be the strategy to allow internal 
changes"within" Platonia 

On 11 Oct 2012, at 15:40, Roger Clough wrote: 

This might be of possible importance with regard to comp.  

First of all, there are a fixed number of monads in this world, since they 
cannot be created or destroyed.  

Fixed number? You mean a finite number or an infinite cardinal? 

While, as I understand it, the identities or Souls of monads do not change, 
they do change internally. This is because their contents represent the  
rapidly changing (in time and space as well as internally) corporeal bodies  
in the changing physical world.  

This seems to be Leibniz's solution to the problem raised by the  
question, "How can monads, being ideas, belong to unchanging Platonia,  
if the monads at the same time represent rapidly changing coporeal  
bodies in this contingent, ever-changing world ?" The answer seems to be  
that only the identities or souls of the monads, not their contents, 
belong to Platonia. 

Here comp can be much precise.  

With regard to comp, presumably there are a fixed number 
of sets or files, each with a fixed identity, each of which  
contains rapidly changing data. The the data in each file 
instantly "reflects" the data in all of the other files, each 
data set from a unique "perspective". 

Something like that, yes. Will explain more asap. It is hard to explain as few 
people knows enough of logics/computer science. You might read my relatively 
recent explanation to the FOAR list, or in the archive of this list, or in the 
papers on my url. 

I agree with this post, but it is not yet clear if you would agree or just 
appreciate the reason why I am agreeing with you. 



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