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.
