Re: The supreme monad is the only actor, the only agent
Hi Roger, On 05 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Man's soul, being a monad, includes the physical man, as the physical man must remain associated to its monad. But man-and-his-monad is not an actor, it is a puppet of the supreme monad. Here we have a vocabulary decision to take. Many thing you said about the supreme monad can wirk with comp if you model it by the universal machine, but this play the role of Man, not a God. So there is but one actor, the Supreme monad. Which is why we give thanks before a meal. usually we thanks God, which is far bigger than any monads, supreme or not. We will have to decide, as I am not sure there is really a conflict, here except vocabulary, and perhaps comp, as you seem to change your mind often (which is very nice to do, as you can acknowledge the mind change). Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 08:36:10 Subject: Re: heraclitus and leibniz on washington vs moscow On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As to washington vs moscow, the man remains the same. Although a man cannot stand in the same river twice, his 1p or monad, his identity, remains the same. OK. The monad itself belongs to the supreme monad or platonia (same 1p, same identity), because although its contents keep changing, it has to remain a fixed identity-- or else the supreme monad would not know where to place the constantly adjusted perceptions. More or less OK. It is a play with four actors: God, Man, the Soul. (= 4 as the Man is a bit schizo and has two personality: a terrestrial and a divine one). Those can be played, in comp + classical theory of knowledge) by Arithmetical Truth (God), The Loebian universal Turing machine (Man, Bp), and Bp p (The theatetical definition of knowledge applied to ideally correct machine's provability. Note that in Leibniz's metaphysics, the perceptions of each monad are not that of an individual soul such as we understand perception. An individual soul sees only the phenomenol world-- from his own perspective. But a monad contains all of the perceptions of all the other monads in the universe, so it sees the universe truly, meaning from all perspectives. The term holographic perception comes to mind. Interesting. I think this or similar are still open problems. In this sense we are God's local sensors, for the God who knows all. OK. This, for me, is more salvia than comp and logic, but so I *guess* you are correct. Open problem with comp. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 05:18:25 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 02 Nov 2012, at 19:35, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/2/2012 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:21, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a concrete robust physical universe. ? Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps where I explicitly do assume a primitive physical reality. In step 8, it is done for the reductio ad absurdum. Dear Bruno, I have cut and pasted your exact words from SANE04 and you still didn't understand... From: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.pdf ...what if we don? grant a concrete robust physical universe? Actually the 8th present step will explain that such a move is nevertheless without purpose. This will make the notion of concrete and existing universe completely devoid of any explicative power. It will follow that a much weaker and usual form of Ockham? razor can be used to conclude that not only physics has been epistemologically reduced to machine psychology, but that ? matter? has been ontologically reduced to ?mind? where mind is defined as the object study of fundamental machine psychology. My claim is that neither physical worlds nor numbers (or any other object that must supervene on mind) can be ontologically primitive. Both must emerge from a neutral ground that is neither and has no particular properties. How can anything emerge from something having non properties? Magic? Dear Bruno, No, necessity. The totality of existence, the One, cannot be complete and consistent simultaneously, Why not? The One is not a theory. thus it must stratify itself into Many. Each of the Many is claimed to have aspects that when recombined cancel to neutrality. [SPK] He goes on to argue that Occam's razor would demand that we reject the very idea of the existence of physical worlds Only of primitive physical worlds. And you did agree with this. I just prove this
Re: Re: The supreme monad is the only actor, the only agent
Hi Bruno Marchal Not to worry. The supreme monad acts through the individual monads (men or doughnuts or planets or whatever) in such a way that the actions appear to be perfectly normal. Thus from an outer perspective such as in comp, how the supreme monad acts would be irrelevant (invisible). The world effectively is as it appears to be. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-06, 07:12:58 Subject: Re: The supreme monad is the only actor, the only agent Hi Roger, On 05 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Man's soul, being a monad, includes the physical man, as the physical man must remain associated to its monad. But man-and-his-monad is not an actor, it is a puppet of the supreme monad. Here we have a vocabulary decision to take. Many thing you said about the supreme monad can wirk with comp if you model it by the universal machine, but this play the role of Man, not a God. So there is but one actor, the Supreme monad. Which is why we give thanks before a meal. usually we thanks God, which is far bigger than any monads, supreme or not. We will have to decide, as I am not sure there is really a conflict, here except vocabulary, and perhaps comp, as you seem to change your mind often (which is very nice to do, as you can acknowledge the mind change). Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 08:36:10 Subject: Re: heraclitus and leibniz on washington vs moscow On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As to washington vs moscow, the man remains the same. Although a man cannot stand in the same river twice, his 1p or monad, his identity, remains the same. OK. The monad itself belongs to the supreme monad or platonia (same 1p, same identity), because although its contents keep changing, it has to remain a fixed identity-- or else the supreme monad would not know where to place the constantly adjusted perceptions. More or less OK. It is a play with four actors: God, Man, the Soul. (= 4 as the Man is a bit schizo and has two personality: a terrestrial and a divine one). Those can be played, in comp + classical theory of knowledge) by Arithmetical Truth (God), The Loebian universal Turing machine (Man, Bp), and Bp p (The theatetical definition of knowledge applied to ideally correct machine's provability. Note that in Leibniz's metaphysics, the perceptions of each monad are not that of an individual soul such as we understand perception. An individual soul sees only the phenomenol world-- from his own perspective. But a monad contains all of the perceptions of all the other monads in the universe, so it sees the universe truly, meaning from all perspectives. The term holographic perception comes to mind. Interesting. I think this or similar are still open problems. In this sense we are God's local sensors, for the God who knows all. OK. This, for me, is more salvia than comp and logic, but so I *guess* you are correct. Open problem with comp. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 05:18:25 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 02 Nov 2012, at 19:35, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/2/2012 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:21, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a concrete robust physical universe. ? Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps where I explicitly do assume a primitive physical reality. In step 8, it is done for the reductio ad absurdum. Dear Bruno, I have cut and pasted your exact words from SANE04 and you still didn't understand... From: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.pdf ...what if we don? grant a concrete robust physical universe? Actually the 8th present step will explain that such a move is nevertheless without purpose. This will make the notion of concrete and existing universe completely devoid of any explicative power. It will follow that a much weaker and usual form of Ockham? razor can be used to conclude that not only physics has been epistemologically reduced to machine psychology, but that ? matter? has been ontologically reduced to ?mind? where mind
The supreme monad is the only actor, the only agent
Hi Bruno Marchal Man's soul, being a monad, includes the physical man, as the physical man must remain associated to its monad. But man-and-his-monad is not an actor, it is a puppet of the supreme monad. So there is but one actor, the Supreme monad. Which is why we give thanks before a meal. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 08:36:10 Subject: Re: heraclitus and leibniz on washington vs moscow On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As to washington vs moscow, the man remains the same. Although a man cannot stand in the same river twice, his 1p or monad, his identity, remains the same. OK. The monad itself belongs to the supreme monad or platonia (same 1p, same identity), because although its contents keep changing, it has to remain a fixed identity-- or else the supreme monad would not know where to place the constantly adjusted perceptions. More or less OK. It is a play with four actors: God, Man, the Soul. (= 4 as the Man is a bit schizo and has two personality: a terrestrial and a divine one). Those can be played, in comp + classical theory of knowledge) by Arithmetical Truth (God), The Loebian universal Turing machine (Man, Bp), and Bp p (The theatetical definition of knowledge applied to ideally correct machine's provability. Note that in Leibniz's metaphysics, the perceptions of each monad are not that of an individual soul such as we understand perception. An individual soul sees only the phenomenol world-- from his own perspective. But a monad contains all of the perceptions of all the other monads in the universe, so it sees the universe truly, meaning from all perspectives. The term holographic perception comes to mind. Interesting. I think this or similar are still open problems. In this sense we are God's local sensors, for the God who knows all. OK. This, for me, is more salvia than comp and logic, but so I *guess* you are correct. Open problem with comp. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 05:18:25 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 02 Nov 2012, at 19:35, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/2/2012 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:21, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a concrete robust physical universe. ? Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps where I explicitly do assume a primitive physical reality. In step 8, it is done for the reductio ad absurdum. Dear Bruno, I have cut and pasted your exact words from SANE04 and you still didn't understand... From: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.pdf ...what if we don? grant a concrete robust physical universe? Actually the 8th present step will explain that such a move is nevertheless without purpose. This will make the notion of concrete and existing universe completely devoid of any explicative power. It will follow that a much weaker and usual form of Ockham? razor can be used to conclude that not only physics has been epistemologically reduced to machine psychology, but that ? matter? has been ontologically reduced to ?mind? where mind is defined as the object study of fundamental machine psychology. My claim is that neither physical worlds nor numbers (or any other object that must supervene on mind) can be ontologically primitive. Both must emerge from a neutral ground that is neither and has no particular properties. How can anything emerge from something having non properties? Magic? Dear Bruno, No, necessity. The totality of existence, the One, cannot be complete and consistent simultaneously, Why not? The One is not a theory. thus it must stratify itself into Many. Each of the Many is claimed to have aspects that when recombined cancel to neutrality. [SPK] He goes on to argue that Occam's razor would demand that we reject the very idea of the existence of physical worlds Only of primitive physical worlds. And you did agree with this. I just prove this from comp. That's the originality. A bit of metaphysics is made into a theorem in a theory (comp). Can we agree that physical worlds emerge somehow from sharable aspects of multiple sheaves of computations? This is what I have shown to be a consequence of comp. I agree. [SPK] given that he can
Re: The supreme monad is the only actor, the only agent
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Man's soul, being a monad, includes the physical man, as the physical man must remain associated to its monad. But man-and-his-monad is not an actor, it is a puppet of the supreme monad. You seem to be claiming that men do not have free will and that it is not because of predeterminism. So there is but one actor, the Supreme monad. Which is why we give thanks before a meal. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 08:36:10 Subject: Re: heraclitus and leibniz on washington vs moscow On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As to washington vs moscow, the man remains the same. Although a man cannot stand in the same river twice, his 1p or monad, his identity, remains the same. OK. The monad itself belongs to the supreme monad or platonia (same 1p, same identity), because although its contents keep changing, it has to remain a fixed identity-- or else the supreme monad would not know where to place the constantly adjusted perceptions. More or less OK. It is a play with four actors: God, Man, the Soul. (= 4 as the Man is a bit schizo and has two personality: a terrestrial and a divine one). Those can be played, in comp + classical theory of knowledge) by Arithmetical Truth (God), The Loebian universal Turing machine (Man, Bp), and Bp p (The theatetical definition of knowledge applied to ideally correct machine's provability. Note that in Leibniz's metaphysics, the perceptions of each monad are not that of an individual soul such as we understand perception. An individual soul sees only the phenomenol world-- from his own perspective. But a monad contains all of the perceptions of all the other monads in the universe, so it sees the universe truly, meaning from all perspectives. The term holographic perception comes to mind. Interesting. I think this or similar are still open problems. In this sense we are God's local sensors, for the God who knows all. OK. This, for me, is more salvia than comp and logic, but so I *guess* you are correct. Open problem with comp. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 05:18:25 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 02 Nov 2012, at 19:35, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/2/2012 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:21, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a concrete robust physical universe. ? Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps where I explicitly do assume a primitive physical reality. In step 8, it is done for the reductio ad absurdum. Dear Bruno, I have cut and pasted your exact words from SANE04 and you still didn't understand... From: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.pdf ...what if we don? grant a concrete robust physical universe? Actually the 8th present step will explain that such a move is nevertheless without purpose. This will make the notion of concrete and existing universe completely devoid of any explicative power. It will follow that a much weaker and usual form of Ockham? razor can be used to conclude that not only physics has been epistemologically reduced to machine psychology, but that ? matter? has been ontologically reduced to ?mind? where mind is defined as the object study of fundamental machine psychology. My claim is that neither physical worlds nor numbers (or any other object that must supervene on mind) can be ontologically primitive. Both must emerge from a neutral ground that is neither and has no particular properties. How can anything emerge from something having non properties? Magic? Dear Bruno, No, necessity. The totality of existence, the One, cannot be complete and consistent simultaneously, Why not? The One is not a theory. thus it must stratify itself into Many. Each of the Many is claimed to have aspects that when recombined cancel to neutrality. [SPK] He goes on to argue that Occam's razor would demand that we reject the very idea of the existence of physical worlds Only of primitive physical worlds. And you did agree with this. I just prove this from comp. That's the originality. A bit of metaphysics is made into a theorem in a theory (comp). Can we agree that physical worlds emerge somehow from sharable aspects of multiple sheaves of computations? This is what I have shown to be a consequence of comp. I agree. [SPK] given that he
Re: Re: The supreme monad is the only actor, the only agent
Hi Richard Ruquist There is not really any problem between free will and pre-determinism as long as the men did what they wanted to do. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-05, 07:31:59 Subject: Re: The supreme monad is the only actor, the only agent On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Man's soul, being a monad, includes the physical man, as the physical man must remain associated to its monad. But man-and-his-monad is not an actor, it is a puppet of the supreme monad. You seem to be claiming that men do not have free will and that it is not because of predeterminism. So there is but one actor, the Supreme monad. Which is why we give thanks before a meal. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 08:36:10 Subject: Re: heraclitus and leibniz on washington vs moscow On 03 Nov 2012, at 12:29, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As to washington vs moscow, the man remains the same. Although a man cannot stand in the same river twice, his 1p or monad, his identity, remains the same. OK. The monad itself belongs to the supreme monad or platonia (same 1p, same identity), because although its contents keep changing, it has to remain a fixed identity-- or else the supreme monad would not know where to place the constantly adjusted perceptions. More or less OK. It is a play with four actors: God, Man, the Soul. (= 4 as the Man is a bit schizo and has two personality: a terrestrial and a divine one). Those can be played, in comp + classical theory of knowledge) by Arithmetical Truth (God), The Loebian universal Turing machine (Man, Bp), and Bp p (The theatetical definition of knowledge applied to ideally correct machine's provability. Note that in Leibniz's metaphysics, the perceptions of each monad are not that of an individual soul such as we understand perception. An individual soul sees only the phenomenol world-- from his own perspective. But a monad contains all of the perceptions of all the other monads in the universe, so it sees the universe truly, meaning from all perspectives. The term holographic perception comes to mind. Interesting. I think this or similar are still open problems. In this sense we are God's local sensors, for the God who knows all. OK. This, for me, is more salvia than comp and logic, but so I *guess* you are correct. Open problem with comp. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/3/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 05:18:25 Subject: Re: Numbers in the Platonic Realm On 02 Nov 2012, at 19:35, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/2/2012 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Nov 2012, at 21:21, Stephen P. King wrote: On 11/1/2012 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: [SPK] Bruno would have us, in step 8 of UDA, to not assume a concrete robust physical universe. ? Reread step 8. Step 7 and step 8 are the only steps where I explicitly do assume a primitive physical reality. In step 8, it is done for the reductio ad absurdum. Dear Bruno, I have cut and pasted your exact words from SANE04 and you still didn't understand... From: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL.pdf ...what if we don? grant a concrete robust physical universe? Actually the 8th present step will explain that such a move is nevertheless without purpose. This will make the notion of concrete and existing universe completely devoid of any explicative power. It will follow that a much weaker and usual form of Ockham? razor can be used to conclude that not only physics has been epistemologically reduced to machine psychology, but that ? matter? has been ontologically reduced to ?mind? where mind is defined as the object study of fundamental machine psychology. My claim is that neither physical worlds nor numbers (or any other object that must supervene on mind) can be ontologically primitive. Both must emerge from a neutral ground that is neither and has no particular properties. How can anything emerge from something having non properties? Magic? Dear Bruno, No, necessity. The totality of existence, the One, cannot be complete and consistent simultaneously, Why not? The One is not a theory. thus it must stratify itself into Many. Each of the Many is claimed
