On 12 Dec 2012, at 16:29, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

That's very close to Leibniz's version of cause and effect,
except in his version, the after-state is not in need of calculation,
it is aready known through the pre-establsihed harmony (PEH).

No problem. If you study a bit of computer science, you will understand that all calculations exists already in all models of theory defining addition and multiplication on the natural numbers. We don't need to calculate them, unless we believe that the prsence of humans are necessary for 43 to be prime.



The supreme monad moves a given monad from his before-state
to his after-state in accordance with the PEH.

Exactly (with the PEH being arithmetical truth, or just the one provable, actually).

Bruno




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

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-10, 09:25:12
Subject: Re: comp or descriptive cause and effect


On 10 Dec 2012, at 13:27, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Bruno Marchal

As I understand comp cause and effect, one simply
describes what happens in an event by completely calculating and
describing the system before (1) and after the event (2). If everything is known about these, nature has to have taken care of the in-between (2-1),
so you don't need to explicitly describe or know it or supply the
necessary forces etc.  The system in (2) will have
included all of the forces and actions. Is that right ?

In the assumption of comp (renamed CTM): OK.

Then the result I explain is that the in-between will result from the competition between an infinity of universal numbers to relate the "before" and "after", when they correspond to our CTM- substitution level. Don't take this for granted, as the meaning of this might be unclear without familiarity with the reasoning.

Bruno




[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/10/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-08, 14:45:48
Subject: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an "as if" universe


On 08 Dec 2012, at 13:16, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
an Idealist like me.

Hmm... First I am silent on my beliefs. I am just a logician who say if you believe this (that you can survive with an artificial digital brain, Comp or CTM) then you have to believe this (that arithmetic is the realm of everything, then rest are definition and theorems). Then I show that CTM, and the first definition (borrowed to Plato, Theaetetus mainly, and Plotinus, for matter) illustrates a rationalist non Aristotelian conception of "reality" (the physical reality emerge from something else).

I prefer to say that CTM leads to neutral monism, instead of idealism. Numbers cannot be taken as "idea" because idea are more complex than numbers, and eventually ideas are defined by the kind of things accessible to universal numbers.

Bruno





And my apologies for calling you a
an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day.

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. 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.

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.

In short, you seem to have no  means of overall synchronizing
the actions of sets.


[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: 2012-12-06, 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!

--
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- l...@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 .

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.

Reply via email to