it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly, except for
yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic "explanation" (=a joke).
I deny to be an atheist because one would need a God to deny and I do not
detect the concept for such. Also: when you wrote
*" I am claiming that "local determination/causation' and 'apparent
causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or
total cause or 'orchestration'."*
it resonates with my "denial" of classic causation in which it is presumed
to know about ALL initiative entailment - what my agnosticism denies from
our present knowable.
I am struggling with the 'changes' that occur: the best I can think of is
the least obstructed possibility in 'relations' to go for, considering more
than we may know within our presently knowable model of the world. I am
also struggling with the driving force behind all 'that' (meaning the
infinite complexity) IMO the origination of anything. A have no
identification for the 'relations' either. Nor for any 'interchange' - a
possible and inevitably occurring 'cause' for violating the (presumed?)
infinite symmetry (call it equilibrium?) - generating undefinable
"universes" (in my narrative).
*Orchestration *is a good word, thank you. All I can think of is the 'least
obstructed way' of *change* substituting even for 'evolution'-like
The 'Overall Conductor' (God?) is a requirement of human thinking within
those limitations we observed over the past millennia.
The 'local governor' is within the model-limitations of yesterday. By no
means an 'absolute' denomination (not a *'real entity'*).
I want to press that I do not feel "above" such limitations myself, but at
least I try to find wider boundaries.
I would not say:
*"...to imagining that a physical computer can run without a power source."*
rather push such driving force (see above) into my agnostic ignorance,
Bundle it up with 'energy', 'electricity' and the other zillion marvels our
conventional sciences USE, CALCULATE, DIFFERENTIATE, without the foggiest
idea WHAT they are and HOW they work. I accept our overall ignorance.
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
> On 12/8/2012 7:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stephen P. King
> You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
> an Idealist like me. And my apologies for calling you a
> an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day.
> Dear Roger,
> It is OK, we all have our 'bad days'. :-)
> You and I seem to differ principally, if I understand you corrrectly,
> in that you believe in local dermination/causation while
> I believe that such causation is (and has to be, because ideas
> aren't causal) only apparent.
> I am claiming that "local determination/causation' and 'apparent
> causation' are the same thing! This implies that there is no global or
> total cause or 'orchestration'.
> To go back to my orchestra analogy,
> you believe that everything is fine as long as each correctly plays
> his score, while I believe that an overall conductor (the supreme
> monad) is needed for maintaining coordination and for
> composing the score in the first place.
> Could you consider that this "overall conductor' is an imaginary
> entity and not a real entity?
> Your local governor appears to be "a set of relations".
> L's would also neccesarily include a higher-order governor
> (the Conductor) to insure that a pre-established harmony
> exists between sets, as well as insuring that each set ansd
> its laws are carried out properly. Are synchhronized.
> Yes, but I am pointing out that this assumption that "a
> pre-established harmony exists between sets" is an a priori global
> partitioning on the percepts and this is explicitly disallowed for
> mathematical reasons. Do you understand the discussion about NP-Hard
> problems that I have previously mentioned?
> In short, you seem to have no means of overall synchronizing
> the actions of sets.
> Exactly. In order to have an overall synchronization of the actions
> there must be a computation of such and this is an infinite NP-hard problem
> that simply cannot occur prior to the availability of the resources for the
> computation. To think otherwise is equivalent to imagining that a physical
> computer can run without a power source.
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] <rclo...@verizon.net]>
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> *From:* Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
> *Receiver:* everything-list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> *Time:* 2012-12-06, 14:02:33
> *Subject:* Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe
> On 12/6/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> > 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.
> Dear Roger,
> It is not "atheist/materialist" at all, my way. It is anti-special,
> in the sense that the potential of the One must be immanent in all of
> the Omniverse, not to be confined to special occasions/locations.
> > 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.
> Your thoughts are easily seen to be a "mental space" when one
> understand that a 'space' is just a set plus some structure of relations.
> > L's metaphysics has no conflicts with the phenomenal
> > 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.
> yes, but Monads offer a very different ontological vision. It is
> not the "atoms in a void" vision at all, and yet allows for the
> appearance of 'atoms in a void' as a mode of perception.
> > I have not yet worked Bruno's view into this scheme, but
> > a first guess is that Bruno's world is 2).
> Actually, Bruno's view is Idealist!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at