On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:25:51 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: >> >> Craig, >> >> The monads themselves are sensitive, > > > How? Why?
They get information from every other monad in the universe. by direct 1/r mapping, a sorta direct perception, and some say reflection as well > >> >> being able to map or reflect or >> perceive the rest of the universe instantly. > > > That means that this capacity of reflection and perception is more primitive Yes, indeed. > than the monads themselves. Yes, agreed. > >> >> Whether they care or not >> is beyond the scope of science. > > > That's a cop out. The truth is the only scope of science. Well I was a little cavalier here. I really meant mathematical physics. Psychology is beyond the scope of my efforts. > >> >> Not seeing any difference is your >> problem. Richard > > > Ok, but why should I want to fix this problem? Why does it matter which > shapes are fundamental? It's like arguing whether percussion, wind, or > stringed instruments are responsible for music. You are right. Trying to get a picture of reality is not likely to fix anything. But painting it is a hell of alota fun. Richard > > Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
