Stephen,

Perhaps my response to Richard, immediately below,
would explain better to you why I believe a supreme monad 
(a CPU) is needed.

----- Have received the following content ----- 
Sender: Roger Clough 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-08, 07:24:56
Subject: Re: Re: WHOOPS! The Supreme Monad (God) is necessary after all..


Hi Richard Ruquist 

That's understandable because of L's terminology.

The individual "perceptions" are continually updated by the supreme monad,
which is necessary so that all the "perceptions" of all
of the monads are properly synchronized.

The anology would be that a CPU is needed to synchronize
all of the operations and data of the subprograms.

Stephen doesn't see such a need.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Richard Ruquist 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-06, 12:32:51
Subject: Re: WHOOPS! The Supreme Monad (God) is necessary after all..


Roger. How can L's monads be blind if they all have perception as
clearly expressed in L's Monadology?
Richard

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> WHOOPS!
>
> My "equivalence" or "as if" princple accepting materialism/atheism
> is wrong for the following reason.
>
> The Supreme monad (God) is absolutely needed, because
> without a supreme monad, the monads are blind and don't work
> properly. The Supreme Monad has a necessary, irreplaceable function,
> that of reflecting the perceptions of all of the other monads in
> the universe back to a given monad that guides his changes.
>
> So I have to take back my acceptance of materialism/atheism.
>
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 12/6/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Roger Clough
> Receiver: Roger Clough
> Time: 2012-12-06, 09:12:38
> Subject: Puppets and strings
>
>
>
> Perhaps a simple analogy might make my thinking plainer.
>
> L sees the world and its beings as acting like puppets with strings.
> Atheism/materialism sees the world "as if" there are no strings.
>
> A similar analogy applies to religion. It all depends on how
> you look at the world.
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 12/6/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Roger Clough
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-12-06, 09:00:01
> Subject: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
>
>
> Hi Stephen P. King
>
> OK, after thinking it over, it seems there's two ways of thinking
> about L's metaphysics.
>
> 1) (My way) The Idealist way, that being L's metaphysics as is.
>
> 2) (Your way) The atheist/materialist way, that being the usual
> atheist/materialistc view of the universe --- as long as you
> realize that strictly speaking this is not correct, but the universe
> acts "as if" there's no God. I have trouble with this view
> in speaking of "mental space", but I suppose you can
> consider mental states to exist "as if" they are real.
> L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenol
> world (the physical world you see and that of science),
> but L would say that strictly speaking, the phenomenol world is
> not real, only its monadic representation is real.
>
> I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
> a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
> 12/6/2012
> "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, 19:51:28
> Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
>
>
> On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> L's monads have perception.
> They sense the entire universe.
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes 
> monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to 
> consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content 
> of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean 
> algebra.
>
>
> --
> 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