On 08 Dec 2012, at 14:02, Roger Clough wrote:
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 and
uniform variation of the rate of sequencing of events) for all
observed
events, mutual consistency is impossible. This implies that there
cannot
exist a singular 1p for "the entire universe". It is for this reason
that I reject the 'realist' approach to ontology and epistemology
and am
trying to develop an alternative.
Think about how it is that a Boolean Algebra, which is known to
be
the 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 no
such assignments exist, which would imply that the function
expressed by
the formula is identically FALSE for all possible variable
assignments.
In this latter case, we would say that the function is unsatisfiable;
otherwise it is satisfiable. For example, the formula a AND b is
satisfiable because one can find the values a = TRUE and b = TRUE,
which
make (a AND b) = TRUE. To emphasize the binary nature of this problem,
it is frequently referred to as Boolean or propositional
satisfiability.
SAT was the first known example of an NP-complete problem. That
briefly
means 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 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
.
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.
