On 08 Dec 2012, at 14:02, Roger Clough wrote:

## Advertising

Hi Stephen P. King For what it's worth, I think Richard referred to Indra's Beads in connection with this problem. Every monad has its own myriad set of perceptions of the other monads, but these are indirect (are constantly updated by the Supreme Monad). Tre Supreme Monad is needed to keep all of these perceptions correct,

Like arithmetical truth will do for the machines/numbers.

each from their own viewpoint. Each monad is different.

`Making God into something which is *not* a monad. He is above the`

`monads, which are more like windows through which "he" can see (and`

`lost himself by filtering the possible).`

`I work like this: anything you say I translate in arithmetic and ask`

`a Löbian machine what she thinks about it.`

`If it is not too much complex I can easily find the answer (thanks to`

`G, G*, etc.). But I can change the definitions, until it fits the`

`most, of course. Up to now:`

`God = Arithmetical truth (a result of Askanas give a trick to`

`interrogate the machine about that, without ever naming "truth". I`

`don't master it, unfortunately and I should search for Askana`

`thesis ...)`

Monad = intensional numbers = programs = machines, Supreme monad = universal (Lôbian) numbers, machine, ... Bp

`Inner God = the knower = the first person (or its greatest common`

`divisor) = Bp & p = S4Grz`

`Then intelligible matter = the measure base = Bp & Dt = observable`

`(p sigma_1, cf the UD)`

Sensible matter = Bp & Dt & p (p sigma_1, cf the UD)

`That gives eight hypostases, because G, split into G and G*, as both`

`material secondary hypostases.`

p Bp Bp Bp & p Bp & Dt Bp & Dt Bp & Dt & p Bp & Dt & p Bruno

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/8/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-03, 17:13:57 Subject: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer. On 12/3/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > RC, > So the entire universe can be in 1p at all times. > RR Dear Richard, How would one prove that all observations that that 1p has are mutually consistent? Unless you assume that the speed of light is infinite, and thus there exists a unique simultaneity (or absolute anduniform variation of the rate of sequencing of events) for allobservedevents, mutual consistency is impossible. This implies that therecannotexist a singular 1p for "the entire universe". It is for this reasonthat I reject the 'realist' approach to ontology and epistemologyand amtrying to develop an alternative.Think about how it is that a Boolean Algebra, which is known tobethe faithful logical structure representing a 'classical'universe' (not'the universe'!), is found to be Satisfiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_satisfiability_problem "In computer science, satisfiability (often written in all capitals or abbreviated SAT) is the problem of determining if the variables of a given Boolean formula can be assigned in such a way as to make the formula evaluate to TRUE. Equally important is to determine whether nosuch assignments exist, which would imply that the functionexpressed bythe formula is identically FALSE for all possible variableassignments.In this latter case, we would say that the function is unsatisfiable; otherwise it is satisfiable. For example, the formula a AND b issatisfiable because one can find the values a = TRUE and b = TRUE,whichmake (a AND b) = TRUE. To emphasize the binary nature of this problem,it is frequently referred to as Boolean or propositionalsatisfiability.SAT was the first known example of an NP-complete problem. Thatbrieflymeans that there is no known algorithm that efficiently solves all instances of SAT, and it is generally believed (but not proven, see P versus NP problem) that no such algorithm can exist. Further, a wide range of other naturally occurring decision and optimization problems can be transformed into instances of SAT." It seems to me that the content of any 1p that is real must be at least a solution to a SAT problem. >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net>wrote:>> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> Yes, God is the supreme observer. See Leibniz. >> The supreme monad sees all clearly. >> >> -- Onward! Stephen --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "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 GoogleGroups "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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.