Toward a Platonic model of creation- ver. 1
This is very very speculative, and is likely to
change before the end of the day. I offer it as
sharable thinking piece in which anybody can
join in (a wiki game) and change or add to.
1) Let Plato's One or Cosmic Mind be the
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Leibniz, being an Idealist, took the monads and ideas to be real,
the physical world to be phenomenol, but not an illusion.
You could still stub your toe.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/9/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
Hi Richard Ruquist
Newton believed in numbers but was still a christian.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/9/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
Hi Richard,
Plato's One cannot be a number, for it is where
numbers and their properties come from.
Your thinking is filled with category mistakes.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/9/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following
Roger,
The monads are collectively god
That's is likely what Newton would believe
and most likely what Liebnitz really believed in
but was afraid to express.
Richard
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Newton believed in numbers but was
On 08 Dec 2012, at 14:11, Roger Clough wrote:
Bruno Marchal said
They are logically interacting though.
Right. Which is only possible if both mind and body (brain) are
treated as mind, which is what L did with his monads.
Materialism treats them both as body, which is nonsensical.
So L's
Hi John,
On 08 Dec 2012, at 21:32, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
how about expanding our closed (mathematical) minds into not only
decimal, binary, etc., but also a (hold on fast!) 12/17ary number
systems?
in that case 17 would be non-primary, divisible by 2,3,4,6 besides
the 1.
I am not
On 09 Dec 2012, at 00:30, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/8/2012 2:28 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Stephen,
it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly,
except for yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic
explanation (=a joke).
Dear John,
;-) I try hard to stay in a
On 09 Dec 2012, at 02:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/8/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
People change over time and the meaning of the pronoun associated
with that changing person will change over time too, and the
meaning of the pronoun will change even more suddenly if a
duplicating
On 12/9/2012 7:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
The monads are collectively god
Dear Roger and Richard,
This is what I have come to believe about Monads as well. They are
collectively God, they do not have an absolute hierarchy. Their relation
is more like what we see in a neural
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 12:37 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If I understand your point correctly the deciding factor of an
experiment's value is whether there is a result obtained not known before
the
On 12/9/2012 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm
With CTM it is simple, if our knowledge augment linearly, our
ignorance augments non computably. The more we know, the more we can
intuit how much we don't know, making us wiser (with some luck). We
can jump from big picture to big picture,
OOps#2: I would have to be a super-Gauss to explain the 12/17ary system.
The last time I really *studied* math-rules was in 1948, preparing for my
Ph.D. exam, - since then I only forget.
12/17 is surely a value, hopefully applicable in erecting a math-system,
like with 2 the binary, or with 10
On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
among
working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate),
That's not an interpretation at all.
Well for a more philosophical statement of it see Omnes. His view is
On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
This reminded me a bit of The Presumptuous Philosopher thought experiment:
It is the year 2100 and physicists have narrowed down the search for a theory of
everything to only two remaining plausible candidate theories, T1 and T2 (using
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
among working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate),
That's not an interpretation at all.
Well
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics among
working
On 12/9/2012 5:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
18 matches
Mail list logo
