Re: Re: Why a supreme monad is necessary
Hi Stephen P. King Yes. I'm getting a lot of flack on what was obviously a poor analogy. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-08, 11:22:33 Subject: Re: Why a supreme monad is necessary On 12/8/2012 6:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The supreme monad is as necessary as the CPU of a computer, for Leibniz's world is a system, and systems need a control unit. Dear Roger, Is this a postulation, a conjecture or an authoritative claim? The way that the physical systems that humans have created to perform computations are arranged is merely for convenience of how we are accessing the results of those computations. What I am considering is more like how a nucleus in a living cell is the CPU of the cell and many cells are combined into a body that has another CPU at that level. Going further, humans compose into societies and form governments that are the CPU of the society. Do you see the pattern of this? The centralization of governorship is not imposed from the outside, but from within! It is more like the 'center of mass' that arises when ever a collection of entities have a mutual relationship of motions. BTW, the materialist mind/brain has no such governor. Could you point to one claim of this by a materialist philosopher? Marx tried to claim this but was only able to make the governor vanish in some perfect future 'utopian' state. I could go on and on, Please do. I would like to understand how these claims follow from some as of know unknown postulates and how do you chose those postulates as inevitable. for every part of Leibniz's metaphysics is necessary. and follows logically from his concept of a monad. Here's just a two of many reasons for there being a supreme monad: 1) A supreme monad is needed, for one thing, because monads have no windows to see out of. Their perceptions are supplied by a third party, the supreme monad. NO! This is inconsistent with L's definition of a monad! Let me quote http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/leibniz.htm: 17. It must be confessed, however, that perception, and that which depends upon it, are inexplicable by mechanical causes, that is to say, by figures and motions. Supposing that there were a machine whose structure produced thought, sensation, and perception, we could conceive of it as increased in size with the same proportions until one was able to enter into its interior, as he would into a mill. Now, on going into it he would find only pieces working upon one another, but never would he find anything to explain perception. It is accordingly in the simple substance, and not in the compound nor in a machine that the perception is to be sought. Furthermore, there is nothing besides perceptions and their changes to be found in the simple substance. And it is in these alone that all the internal activities of the simple substance can consist. 18. All simple substances or created monads may be called entelechies, because they have in themselves a certain perfection. There is in them a sufficiency which makes them the source of their internal activities, and renders them, so to speak, incorporeal Automatons. Leibniz proposes God as the coordinator of percepts, not as the 'supplier': 51. In the case of simple substances, the influence which one monad has upon another is only ideal. It can have its effect only through the mediation of God, in so far as in the ideas of God each monad can rightly demand that God, in regulating the others from the beginning of things, should have regarded it also. For since one created monad cannot have a physical influence upon the inner being of another, it is only through the primal regulation that one can have dependence upon another. 52. It is thus that among created things action and passivity are reciprocal. For God, in comparing two simple substances, finds in each one reasons obliging him to adapt the other to it; and consequently what is active in certain respects is passive from another point of view, active in so far as what we distinctly know in it serves to give a reason for what occurs in another, and passive in so far as the reason for what occurs in it is found in what is distinctly known in another. 53. Now as there are an infinity of possible universes in the ideas of God, and but one of them can exist, there must be a sufficient reason' for the choice of God which determines him to select one rather than another. It is what is delineated in #53 that find important and that which I seek to elaborate upon in my thinking. This sufficient reason I take to be mutual consistency of pairs of percepts (in a combinatorial and concurrent sense) in the sense of satisfiability for a Boolean Algebra. But as to your
Re: Why a supreme monad is necessary
On 12/8/2012 6:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King The supreme monad is as necessary as the CPU of a computer, for Leibniz's world is a system, and systems need a control unit. Dear Roger, Is this a postulation, a conjecture or an authoritative claim? The way that the physical systems that humans have created to perform computations are arranged is merely for convenience of how we are accessing the results of those computations. What I am considering is more like how a nucleus in a living cell is the CPU of the cell and many cells are combined into a body that has another CPU at that level. Going further, humans compose into societies and form governments that are the CPU of the society. Do you see the pattern of this? The centralization of governorship is not imposed from the outside, but from within! It is more like the 'center of mass' that arises when ever a collection of entities have a mutual relationship of motions. BTW, the materialist mind/brain has no such governor. Could you point to one claim of this by a materialist philosopher? Marx tried to claim this but was only able to make the governor vanish in some perfect future 'utopian' state. I could go on and on, Please do. I would like to understand how these claims follow from some as of know unknown postulates and how do you chose those postulates as inevitable. for every part of Leibniz's metaphysics is necessary. and follows logically from his concept of a monad. Here's just a two of many reasons for there being a supreme monad: 1) A supreme monad is needed, for one thing, because monads have no windows to see out of. Their perceptions are supplied by a third party, the supreme monad. NO! This is inconsistent with L's definition of a monad! Let me quote http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/leibniz.htm: 17.It must be confessed, however, that/perception/, and that which depends upon it,/are inexplicable by mechanical causes/, that is to say, by figures and motions. Supposing that there were a machine whose structure produced thought, sensation, and perception, we could conceive of it as increased in size with the same proportions until one was able to enter into its interior, as he would into a mill. Now, on going into it he would find only pieces working upon one another, but never would he find anything to explain perception. It is accordingly in the simple substance, and not in the compound nor in a machine that the perception is to be sought. Furthermore, there is nothing besides perceptions and their changes to be found in the simple substance. And it is in these alone that all the/internal activities/of the simple substance can consist. 18.All simple substances or created monads may be called/entelechies/, because they have in themselves a certain perfection. There is in them a sufficiency which makes them the source of their internal activities, and renders them, so to speak, incorporeal Automatons. Leibniz proposes God as the coordinator of percepts, not as the 'supplier': 51.In the case of simple substances, the influence which one monad has upon another is only/ideal/. It can have its effect only through the mediation of God, in so far as in the ideas of God each monad can rightly demand that God, in regulating the others from the beginning of things, should have regarded it also. For since one created monad cannot have a physical influence upon the inner being of another, it is only through the primal regulation that one can have dependence upon another. 52.It is thus that among created things action and passivity are reciprocal. For God, in comparing two simple substances, finds in each one reasons obliging him to adapt the other to it; and consequently what is active in certain respects is passive from another point of view,/active/in so far as what we distinctly know in it serves to give a reason for what occurs in another, and/passive/in so far as the reason for what occurs in it is found in what is distinctly known in another. 53.Now as there are an infinity of possible universes in the ideas of God, and but one of them can exist, there must be a sufficient reason' for the choice of God which determines him to select one rather than another. It is what is delineated in #53 that find important and that which I seek to elaborate upon in my thinking. This sufficient reason I take to be mutual consistency of pairs of percepts (in a combinatorial and concurrent sense) in the sense of satisfiability for a Boolean Algebra. But as to your claim above let us look further: 60.Besides, in what has just been said can be seen the/a priori/reasons why things cannot be otherwise than they are. It is because God, in ordering the whole, has had regard to every part and in particular to each monad; and since the monad is by its very/nature representative/, nothing can limit it to represent merely a
Re: Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe
Hi Bruno, Hume would agree with you, even at the classical level, but even Leibniz, whio construed all phenomena as mind, said that the phenomena we see and measure are well-founded phenomena,not illusions. You can still stub your toe on a rock. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 13:02:32 Subject: Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe On 9/14/2012 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:44, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal SNIP BRUNO: Matter is what is not determined, and thus contingent indeed, at its very roots, like W and M in a self-duplication experiment, or like, plausibly when looking at a photon through a calcite crystal. ROGER: So Newton's Laws, such as F = ma, are not deterministic ? It means that F = ma, if correct, can only be an approximation of a deeper non deterministic process. Hi Bruno, What does this mean? If we assume a stochastic process, like Markov or Weiner, then we can only do so in a framework that allows for an ordering of the events to be defined. Strict indeterminacy is a self-contradictory concept. Note that it is actually the case, as F=ma can be derived from the more fundamental schroedinger equation, which indeed give rise to a first person plural indeterminacy. I wish that you would explain how this is the case. Your explanation in terms of cut and paste operations assumes a unifying framework of a single word that has the room for he multiple copies. You seem to ignore this necessity in your step 8. ROGER: and in which men, so as not to be robots, BRUNO: You might try to be polite with the robots, and with your son in law, victim of pro-life doctors who gave him an artificial brain without its consent. He does not complain on the artificial brain, though, as he is glad to be alive. Do you think it is a (philosophical) zombie? Come on! He is a Lutheran. Obviously, if you decide that a machine cannot be a Lutheran, few machines will be ... ROGER: I may be wrong, but I don't see how an artifical brain can have any awareness or intelligence, for these require life-- real life. As you say, you might be wrong. I agree with Bruno. So long as the person with the artificial brain can behave and respond to interviews the same way as a real person what is the difference that makes a difference? Nobody understand how a machine, or a brain, can feel, but machine can already explain why they can know some true fact without being able to justify them---at all. With the good hypotheses, sometimes we can explain why there are things that we cannot explain. Please understand, Bruno, that you are tacitly assuming a common framework or schemata what allows the comparison of a machine that can explain ... and a machine that cannot explain This is the mistake that you and Maudlin commit in the MGA argument. Contrafactuals depend on just their possibility to act for their capacity, not on their actual state of affairs. And you might be true, but your personal feeling cannot be used in this setting, as they can only look like prejudices, even if true. The best is to keep the mind open, to make clear assumptions and to reason, without ever pretending to know the public truth. I agree. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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.
Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe
On 14 Sep 2012, at 19:02, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/14/2012 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:44, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal SNIP BRUNO: Matter is what is not determined, and thus contingent indeed, at its very roots, like W and M in a self-duplication experiment, or like, plausibly when looking at a photon through a calcite crystal. ROGER: So Newton's Laws, such as F = ma, are not deterministic ? It means that F = ma, if correct, can only be an approximation of a deeper non deterministic process. Hi Bruno, What does this mean? If we assume a stochastic process, like Markov or Weiner, then we can only do so in a framework that allows for an ordering of the events to be defined. Strict indeterminacy is a self-contradictory concept. ? Note that it is actually the case, as F=ma can be derived from the more fundamental schroedinger equation, which indeed give rise to a first person plural indeterminacy. I wish that you would explain how this is the case. Your explanation in terms of cut and paste operations assumes a unifying framework of a single word that has the room for he multiple copies. You seem to ignore this necessity in your step 8. I was alluding to Feynman phase randomization, not comp. This well explain in his little book on light. ROGER: and in which men, so as not to be robots, BRUNO: You might try to be polite with the robots, and with your son in law, victim of pro-life doctors who gave him an artificial brain without its consent. He does not complain on the artificial brain, though, as he is glad to be alive. Do you think it is a (philosophical) zombie? Come on! He is a Lutheran. Obviously, if you decide that a machine cannot be a Lutheran, few machines will be ... ROGER: I may be wrong, but I don't see how an artifical brain can have any awareness or intelligence, for these require life-- real life. As you say, you might be wrong. I agree with Bruno. So long as the person with the artificial brain can behave and respond to interviews the same way as a real person what is the difference that makes a difference? Actually I don't use this (even if I agree). But if you agree with this, then it is even more mysterious that you have a problem with the idea that physics is derivable from arithmetic, because in arithmetic the program have the right behavior, by definition of comp. They just lack primitive physical bodies. Nobody understand how a machine, or a brain, can feel, but machine can already explain why they can know some true fact without being able to justify them---at all. With the good hypotheses, sometimes we can explain why there are things that we cannot explain. Please understand, Bruno, that you are tacitly assuming a common framework or schemata what allows the comparison of a machine that can explain ... and a machine that cannot explain I assume elementary arithmetic, and that is enough for such a purpose. This is the mistake that you and Maudlin commit in the MGA argument. Contrafactuals depend on just their possibility to act for their capacity, not on their actual state of affairs. I agree but don't see the mistake. You are not clear enough. Bruno And you might be true, but your personal feeling cannot be used in this setting, as they can only look like prejudices, even if true. The best is to keep the mind open, to make clear assumptions and to reason, without ever pretending to know the public truth. I agree. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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.
Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe
On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:44, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal SNIP BRUNO: Matter is what is not determined, and thus contingent indeed, at its very roots, like W and M in a self-duplication experiment, or like, plausibly when looking at a photon through a calcite crystal. ROGER: So Newton's Laws, such as F = ma, are not deterministic ? It means that F = ma, if correct, can only be an approximation of a deeper non deterministic process. Note that it is actually the case, as F=ma can be derived from the more fundamental schroedinger equation, which indeed give rise to a first person plural indeterminacy. ROGER: and in which men, so as not to be robots, BRUNO: You might try to be polite with the robots, and with your son in law, victim of pro-life doctors who gave him an artificial brain without its consent. He does not complain on the artificial brain, though, as he is glad to be alive. Do you think it is a (philosophical) zombie? Come on! He is a Lutheran. Obviously, if you decide that a machine cannot be a Lutheran, few machines will be ... ROGER: I may be wrong, but I don't see how an artifical brain can have any awareness or intelligence, for these require life-- real life. As you say, you might be wrong. Nobody understand how a machine, or a brain, can feel, but machine can already explain why they can know some true fact without being able to justify them---at all. With the good hypotheses, sometimes we can explain why there are things that we cannot explain. And you might be true, but your personal feeling cannot be used in this setting, as they can only look like prejudices, even if true. The best is to keep the mind open, to make clear assumptions and to reason, without ever pretending to know the public truth. Bruno 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.
Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe
On 9/14/2012 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:44, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal SNIP BRUNO: Matter is what is not determined, and thus contingent indeed, at its very roots, like W and M in a self-duplication experiment, or like, plausibly when looking at a photon through a calcite crystal. ROGER: So Newton's Laws, such as F = ma, are not deterministic ? It means that F = ma, if correct, can only be an approximation of a deeper non deterministic process. Hi Bruno, What does this mean? If we assume a stochastic process, like Markov or Weiner, then we can only do so in a framework that allows for an ordering of the events to be defined. Strict indeterminacy is a self-contradictory concept. Note that it is actually the case, as F=ma can be derived from the more fundamental schroedinger equation, which indeed give rise to a first person plural indeterminacy. I wish that you would explain how this is the case. Your explanation in terms of cut and paste operations assumes a unifying framework of a single word that has the room for he multiple copies. You seem to ignore this necessity in your step 8. ROGER: and in which men, so as not to be robots, BRUNO: You might try to be polite with the robots, and with your son in law, victim of pro-life doctors who gave him an artificial brain without its consent. He does not complain on the artificial brain, though, as he is glad to be alive. Do you think it is a (philosophical) zombie? Come on! He is a Lutheran. Obviously, if you decide that a machine cannot be a Lutheran, few machines will be ... ROGER: I may be wrong, but I don't see how an artifical brain can have any awareness or intelligence, for these require life-- real life. As you say, you might be wrong. I agree with Bruno. So long as the person with the artificial brain can behave and respond to interviews the same way as a real person what is the difference that makes a difference? Nobody understand how a machine, or a brain, can feel, but machine can already explain why they can know some true fact without being able to justify them---at all. With the good hypotheses, sometimes we can explain why there are things that we cannot explain. Please understand, Bruno, that you are tacitly assuming a common framework or schemata what allows the comparison of a machine that can explain ... and a machine that cannot explain This is the mistake that you and Maudlin commit in the MGA argument. Contrafactuals depend on just their possibility to act for their capacity, not on their actual state of affairs. And you might be true, but your personal feeling cannot be used in this setting, as they can only look like prejudices, even if true. The best is to keep the mind open, to make clear assumptions and to reason, without ever pretending to know the public truth. I agree. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- 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: Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe
Hi Bruno Marchal SNIP BRUNO: Matter is what is not determined, and thus contingent indeed, at its very roots, like W and M in a self-duplication experiment, or like, plausibly when looking at a photon through a calcite crystal. ROGER: So Newton's Laws, such as F = ma, are not deterministic ? ROGER: and in which men, so as not to be robots, BRUNO: You might try to be polite with the robots, and with your son in law, victim of pro-life doctors who gave him an artificial brain without its consent. He does not complain on the artificial brain, though, as he is glad to be alive. Do you think it is a (philosophical) zombie? Come on! He is a Lutheran. Obviously, if you decide that a machine cannot be a Lutheran, few machines will be ... ROGER: I may be wrong, but I don't see how an artifical brain can have any awareness or intelligence, for these require life-- real life. SNIP -- 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: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: OK. The bad is in arithmetic. To believe we can eliminate it would be like believing we can eliminate the number 666 from N. We can suppress the room 13 and 17, even 666 in some hostels, but that is the best we can do. Still, we can reduce the harm, relatively, and learn to contemplate the spectacle, also. Bruno This reminds me of a standup bit, I forgot the comedian: *Often in hotels they don't have a 13th floor... But the people on the 14th floor know which floor they're really on... But this is not fair, for if they decided to commit suicide by jumping out of the window, they would die earlier! And people in a suicidal state tend to forget this, which is sad because I think people should be informed... especially concerning the nuances of something as grave and important as their own suicide, don't you think? * A comedian demanding arithmetic truth of sorts vs. superstition... It's necessary, otherwise we lie about grave, even if subtle nuances :) -- 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: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe
More religion On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: The Supreme monad is necessary because it is necessary. It is the only monad that can perceive and act. The other monads are linked to it but passive and have no windows (are bllnd) . Thus the supreme monad, which choose to call God, is like a CPU (central processing unit or chip) of a net of blind, passive monads. So everything that happens (even the bad) is caused by the supreme monad or God, which is what christianity teaches us. God has perfect vision and so is He wholly perfect but He but has to act in a contingent, imperfect world that nevertheless must try to follow the laws of physics (so tsunamies can happen) and in which men, so as not to be robots, have the ability to choose between good and evil and unfortunately some do evil. So its not the best world but the best possible world, Roger Clough - Have received the following content - *Sender:* Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 08:50:02 *Subject:* Re: On perception (only done directly by God) Hi Roger, What purpose does the idea of an actual Supreme Monad have? The point is that *there does not exist a single Boolean algebraic description of its perception*. We can still imagine what such a supremumhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/Supremum.htmlexist but such only are real for one individual mind at a time. This is the person relationship with God idea. This is a possible solution to the measure problem that Bruno discusses. On 8/23/2012 8:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Although monads do not perceive the world directly, whatever does it for them (the Supreme Monad or to use a word despised by some on the list, God) must have a very wide bandwidth. Leibniz says that perception of bodies is only possible if the receptor (God) has wideband ability since the objects of experience are all different and are infinite variety not only as a whole but in themselves. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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.
Re: Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe
Hi Richard Ruquist Sorry, I used the word God instead of supreme monad. I did indicate that the first time at least, Thus the supreme monad, which choose to call God... Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 13:19:10 Subject: Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe More religion On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ? The Supreme monad is necessary because it is necessary. It is the only monad that can perceive and act. The other monads are linked to it but passive and have no windows (are bllnd) . ? Thus the supreme monad, which choose to call God, ?s like a?PU (central processing unit or chip) of a net of blind, passive monads. ? So everything that happens (even the bad) is caused by the supreme monad or God, which is what christianity teaches us. God has perfect vision?nd so is He wholly perfect but He but has to act in a contingent, imperfect world that nevertheless must try to follow the laws of physics (so tsunamies can happen) and in which men, so as not to be robots, have the ability to choose between good and evil and unfortunately some do evil. So its not the best world but the best possible world, ? Roger Clough ? ? - Have received the following content - Sender: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 08:50:02 Subject: Re: On perception (only done directly by God) Hi Roger, ?? What purpose does the idea of an actual Supreme Monad have? The point is that there does not exist a single Boolean algebraic description of its perception. We can still imagine what such a supremum exist but such only are real for one individual mind at a time. This is the person relationship with God idea. This is a possible solution to the measure problem that Bruno discusses. On 8/23/2012 8:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi ? Although monads do not perceive the world directly, whatever does it for them (the Supreme Monad or to use a word despised by some on the list, God) must have a very wide bandwidth. Leibniz says that perception of bodies is only possible? if the receptor (God) has?ideband ability since the objects of experience are all different and are infinite variety not only as a whole but in themselves.? ? ? ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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. -- 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.
