L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > > God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, > it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) > afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's > metaphysics. > > > > > [Roger Clough], [[email protected]] > 12/5/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Stephen P. King > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-12-05, 06:45:25 > Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas > > On 12/5/2012 5:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Stephen P. King >> I don't recall ever finding a mistake in Leibniz's metaphysics, > > Dear Roger, > > I found his need to appeal to God to solve the PEH problem to be a > big mistake, but at least he had a good excuse and did work out many of > the needed ideas of computation theory... > >> although >> there is a serious shortcoming in not completely defining what a >> substance is. > > Yes, "substance" is the universal solvent of the time. Nowadays we > have Higgs bosons and Dark matter... same shit, different label. > >> How far down the scale of maginification must or can >> or should one go ? > > As far down (and up!) as necessary to get to a level where one has > structure that requires a different set of representations. Think of how > at the molecular level one no longer has a physic of pressure and > temperature, but one of van der Waals forces... > >> Leibniz seems to invite study, as he appearsd to have provided, not >> a thoroughly worked out metaphysics, but a toolkit (the monadology) >> for you to work it out yourself. > > What impresses me the most about the monadology is that it presents > a completely different mereological (relations between wholes and parts) > system than the "atoms in a void" paradigm. Additionally, it gives an > alternative to the usual "innate property" idea with its relationalism. > I see in Leibniz' the first glimmerings of Non-Well Founded sets. > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > > -- > 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. > > -- > 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.
-- 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.
