L's monads have perception.
They sense the entire universe.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> 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], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to