Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust

2012-11-08 Thread Stephen P. King

On 11/8/2012 6:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Time and space don't exist as substances so
they don't influence the monads, which as you say
are eternal. Further, there is no substance space.
So the monads are not organized in any way.
The monads can be thought of as a collection
of an infinite number of mathematical points.

From dust we come and to dust we shall return.


Hi Roger,

The absolute disconnection of the monads is what makes them a 
'dust'. This is exactly what is a Stone space - the dual to a Boolean 
algebra. ;-) The idea is that any one monad has as its image of other 
monads the vision of a mathematical point. This fits the idea of that 
the classical universe is atoms in a void as taught by Democritus. 
http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec1.html


What Craig and I are proposing is to add time to this idea. The 
evolution of the dust from one configuration to another is the arrow of 
time. Switching to the dual, we see teh evolution of Boolean algebras, 
whose arrow is the entailment of one state by all previous states. These 
two arrows face in opposite directions


... A = A' Stone space
|   |
A*=A*'  Boolean algebra

The duals aspects of each monad evolve in opposite directions.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:01:19
Subject: Re: Communicability


On 11/7/2012 11:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

That sounds like Leibniz. Each monad contains the
views of all of the other monads in order to see
the whole, not from just one perspective.


Hi Roger,

  Yes, and that is why I like the idea of a Monad. I just don't agree
with Leibniz' theory of how they are organized. Leibniz demanded that
their organization is imposed ab initio, he assumed that there is a
special beginning of time. I see the monads as eternal, never created
nor destroyed, and their mutual relationships are merely the
co-occurence of their perspectives. This makes God's creativity to be an
eternal action and not a special one time action.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/7/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 18:17:30
Subject: Re: Communicability


On 11/6/2012 11:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

What happens if I mistake a statue of a beautiful woman
for the real thing, thus turning, eg, a statue of pygmalion into an
actual woman ?

Or mistake fool's gold or gold foiled chocolates
for actual gold coins ?

Does the world actually become cloudy if I have cataracts ?


It is not just about you. It is about the huge number of observers. What
matters is that they can communicate with each other and mutually
confirm what is real. Why do you imagine that only humans can be
observers?




--
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.



Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust

2012-11-08 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:


Stephan,
If the compact manifolds of string theory are all different and
distinct (as I claim in my paper from observations of a variable fine
structure constant across the universe), then the manifolds should
form a Stone space if each manifold instantly maps all the others into
itself, my (BEC physics) conjecture, but also a Buddhist belief-
Indra's Pearls.

If so, youall may be working on implications of string theory- like
consciousness.

However, in my paper I claim that a 'leap of faith' is necessary to go
from incompleteness to consciousness (C). Would you agree? Bruno says
C emerges naturally from comp.


More precisely, I say that consciousness and matter emerges from  
elementary arithmetic,  *once* you bet on comp, that is the idea that  
the brain or the body can be Turing emulated at some right level so  
that you would remain conscious.


Bruno




-- Forwarded message --
From: Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com


On 11/8/2012 6:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Time and space don't exist as substances so
they don't influence the monads, which as you say
are eternal. Further, there is no substance space.
So the monads are not organized in any way.
The monads can be thought of as a collection
of an infinite number of mathematical points.


From dust we come and to dust we shall return.



Hi Roger,

   The absolute disconnection of the monads is what makes them a
'dust'. This is exactly what is a Stone space - the dual to a Boolean
algebra. ;-) The idea is that any one monad has as its image of other
monads the vision of a mathematical point. This fits the idea of that
the classical universe is atoms in a void as taught by Democritus.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec1.html

   What Craig and I are proposing is to add time to this idea. The
evolution of the dust from one configuration to another is the arrow
of time. Switching to the dual, we see teh evolution of Boolean
algebras, whose arrow is the entailment of one state by all previous
states. These two arrows face in opposite directions

... A = A' Stone space
   |   |
A*=A*'  Boolean algebra

   The duals aspects of each monad evolve in opposite directions.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:01:19
Subject: Re: Communicability


On 11/7/2012 11:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

That sounds like Leibniz. Each monad contains the
views of all of the other monads in order to see
the whole, not from just one perspective.

Hi Roger,

Yes, and that is why I like the idea of a Monad. I just don't  
agree

with Leibniz' theory of how they are organized. Leibniz demanded that
their organization is imposed ab initio, he assumed that there is a
special beginning of time. I see the monads as eternal, never created
nor destroyed, and their mutual relationships are merely the
co-occurence of their perspectives. This makes God's creativity to  
be an

eternal action and not a special one time action.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/7/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 18:17:30
Subject: Re: Communicability


On 11/6/2012 11:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

What happens if I mistake a statue of a beautiful woman
for the real thing, thus turning, eg, a statue of pygmalion into an
actual woman ?

Or mistake fool's gold or gold foiled chocolates
for actual gold coins ?

Does the world actually become cloudy if I have cataracts ?

It is not just about you. It is about the huge number of observers.  
What

matters is that they can communicate with each other and mutually
confirm what is real. Why do you imagine that only humans can be
observers?



--
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

Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust

2012-11-08 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 Stephan,
 If the compact manifolds of string theory are all different and
 distinct (as I claim in my paper from observations of a variable fine
 structure constant across the universe), then the manifolds should
 form a Stone space if each manifold instantly maps all the others into
 itself, my (BEC physics) conjecture, but also a Buddhist belief-
 Indra's Pearls.

 If so, youall may be working on implications of string theory- like
 consciousness.

 However, in my paper I claim that a 'leap of faith' is necessary to go
 from incompleteness to consciousness (C). Would you agree? Bruno says
 C emerges naturally from comp.


 More precisely, I say that consciousness and matter emerges from elementary
 arithmetic,  *once* you bet on comp, that is the idea that the brain or the
 body can be Turing emulated at some right level so that you would remain
 conscious.

 Bruno



And of course what I am hoping as a physicist rather than a
mathematician or logician is that the compact manifolds may be the
basis of the elementary arithmetic from which spacetime, matter (ie.,
strings) and consciousness emerge. However, I do not understand what
it means to bet on comp. Does the whole shebang collapse if brains
do not exist?
Richard



 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
 Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM
 Subject: Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com


 On 11/8/2012 6:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King

 Time and space don't exist as substances so
 they don't influence the monads, which as you say
 are eternal. Further, there is no substance space.
 So the monads are not organized in any way.
 The monads can be thought of as a collection
 of an infinite number of mathematical points.

 From dust we come and to dust we shall return.



 Hi Roger,

The absolute disconnection of the monads is what makes them a
 'dust'. This is exactly what is a Stone space - the dual to a Boolean
 algebra. ;-) The idea is that any one monad has as its image of other
 monads the vision of a mathematical point. This fits the idea of that
 the classical universe is atoms in a void as taught by Democritus.
 http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec1.html

What Craig and I are proposing is to add time to this idea. The
 evolution of the dust from one configuration to another is the arrow
 of time. Switching to the dual, we see teh evolution of Boolean
 algebras, whose arrow is the entailment of one state by all previous
 states. These two arrows face in opposite directions

 ... A = A' Stone space
|   |
 A*=A*'  Boolean algebra

The duals aspects of each monad evolve in opposite directions.


 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 11/8/2012
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Stephen P. King
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-11-07, 19:01:19
 Subject: Re: Communicability


 On 11/7/2012 11:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Stephen P. King

 That sounds like Leibniz. Each monad contains the
 views of all of the other monads in order to see
 the whole, not from just one perspective.

 Hi Roger,

 Yes, and that is why I like the idea of a Monad. I just don't agree
 with Leibniz' theory of how they are organized. Leibniz demanded that
 their organization is imposed ab initio, he assumed that there is a
 special beginning of time. I see the monads as eternal, never created
 nor destroyed, and their mutual relationships are merely the
 co-occurence of their perspectives. This makes God's creativity to be an
 eternal action and not a special one time action.


 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 11/7/2012
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 From: Stephen P. King
 Receiver: everything-list
 Time: 2012-11-06, 18:17:30
 Subject: Re: Communicability


 On 11/6/2012 11:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 What happens if I mistake a statue of a beautiful woman
 for the real thing, thus turning, eg, a statue of pygmalion into an
 actual woman ?

 Or mistake fool's gold or gold foiled chocolates
 for actual gold coins ?

 Does the world actually become cloudy if I have cataracts ?

 It is not just about you. It is about the huge number of observers. What
 matters is that they can communicate with each other and mutually
 confirm what is real. Why do you imagine that only humans can be
 observers?



 --
 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

Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust

2012-11-08 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Nov 2012, at 16:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 08 Nov 2012, at 14:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:


Stephan,
If the compact manifolds of string theory are all different and
distinct (as I claim in my paper from observations of a variable  
fine

structure constant across the universe), then the manifolds should
form a Stone space if each manifold instantly maps all the others  
into

itself, my (BEC physics) conjecture, but also a Buddhist belief-
Indra's Pearls.

If so, youall may be working on implications of string theory- like
consciousness.

However, in my paper I claim that a 'leap of faith' is necessary  
to go
from incompleteness to consciousness (C). Would you agree? Bruno  
says

C emerges naturally from comp.



More precisely, I say that consciousness and matter emerges from  
elementary
arithmetic,  *once* you bet on comp, that is the idea that the  
brain or the
body can be Turing emulated at some right level so that you would  
remain

conscious.

Bruno




And of course what I am hoping as a physicist rather than a
mathematician or logician is that the compact manifolds may be the
basis of the elementary arithmetic from which spacetime, matter (ie.,
strings) and consciousness emerge.


Is it not more elegant if we can derived the strings (which are rather  
sophisticated mathematical object) from arithmetic (through  
computationalism)?


It seems to me that string theory assumes or presumes arithmetic.  
Indeed it even assumes that the sum (in some sense, 'course) of all  
natural numbers gives -1/12. In fact all theories assume the  
arithmetical platonia, except some part of non Turing universal  
algebraic structures.






However, I do not understand what
it means to bet on comp.


You bet on comp when you bet that that you can survive with a digital  
brain (a computer) replacing the brain.
Comp is just Descartes Mechanism, after the discovery of the universal  
machine. The biggest discovery that nature do and redo all the times.







Does the whole shebang collapse if brains
do not exist?


No.

But brains cannot not exist, as they exist, in some sense, already in  
arithmetic. The whole shebang is a sharable dream. I call the computer  
universal number to help people to keep their arithmetical existence  
in mind.
I will say more in FOAR asap. You can find my papers on that subject  
from my URL, but don't hesitate to ask any question, even on  
references. The simplest, concise, yet complete (with the references!)  
paper is this one:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

Simply state, what I say is that consciousness *and* matter (physics)  
is in your head, a bit like the mystics. But then I show a  
constructive version of that statement allowing any Universal machine  
to derived physics by looking inward, and then we can compare the comp- 
physics (the physics in the head of the universal Turing machine) with  
empirical physics, so that we can test comp.


Bruno









-- Forwarded message --
From: Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
Date: Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Leibniz: Reality as Dust
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com


On 11/8/2012 6:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

Time and space don't exist as substances so
they don't influence the monads, which as you say
are eternal. Further, there is no substance space.
So the monads are not organized in any way.
The monads can be thought of as a collection
of an infinite number of mathematical points.


From dust we come and to dust we shall return.




Hi Roger,

  The absolute disconnection of the monads is what makes them a
'dust'. This is exactly what is a Stone space - the dual to a  
Boolean
algebra. ;-) The idea is that any one monad has as its image of  
other
monads the vision of a mathematical point. This fits the idea of  
that

the classical universe is atoms in a void as taught by Democritus.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec1.html

  What Craig and I are proposing is to add time to this idea. The
evolution of the dust from one configuration to another is the arrow
of time. Switching to the dual, we see teh evolution of Boolean
algebras, whose arrow is the entailment of one state by all previous
states. These two arrows face in opposite directions

... A = A' Stone space
  |   |
A*=A*'  Boolean algebra

  The duals aspects of each monad evolve in opposite directions.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 19:01:19
Subject: Re: Communicability


On 11/7/2012 11:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King

That sounds like Leibniz. Each monad contains the
views of all of the other monads in order to see
the whole, not from just one perspective