Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On 08 Dec 2012, at 00:23, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/7/2012 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2012, at 01:51, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. A diagonal one. The Boolean algebra with a Löbian transformation. A Magari Algebra. With the CTM. Bruno Dear Bruno, The Magari Algebras ( http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Magari_algebra) are beautiful and capture the duality relation to Stone Compacta very elegantly! But do they retain the property that a CABA has, as discussed by Pratt, that they are fragile' in the sense that if any of their propositions are changed they collapse into a singleton - so that they can be rebuilt with different propositions? If not this would seem to make them immune to forcing, which becomes an obstruction to my proposal. I need to have a way to use Martin's axiom (and maybe its extension, the proper forcing axiom) to define relative differences between the logical algebras. Write some more longer and precise text if you want me to comment on this. I am looking for something like a 'calculus of distinctioning' for the logical algebras which seems to be necessary for them to represent 'minds'. The motivation for this is that there has to be something meaningful to the idea: I changed my mind. A mind that is fixed cannot know novelty or evolve. Sure. 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: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On 06 Dec 2012, at 01:51, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. A diagonal one. The Boolean algebra with a Löbian transformation. A Magari Algebra. With the CTM. Bruno -- 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 . 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: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On 12/7/2012 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2012, at 01:51, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/complete+Boolean+algebra. A diagonal one. The Boolean algebra with a Löbian transformation. A Magari Algebra. With the CTM. Bruno Dear Bruno, The Magari Algebras ( http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Magari_algebra) are beautiful and capture the duality relation to Stone Compacta very elegantly! But do they retain the property that a CABA has, as discussed by Pratt, that they are fragile' in the sense that if any of their propositions are changed they collapse into a singleton - so that they can be rebuilt with different propositions? If not this would seem to make them immune to forcing, which becomes an obstruction to my proposal. I need to have a way to use Martin's axiom (and maybe its extension, the proper forcing axiom) to define relative differences between the logical algebras. I am looking for something like a 'calculus of distinctioning' for the logical algebras which seems to be necessary for them to represent 'minds'. The motivation for this is that there has to be something meaningful to the idea: I changed my mind. A mind that is fixed cannot know novelty or evolve. -- 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: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
Hi Stephen P. King L's universe is a case of downward causation from the top (the One). So the top (the One) is absolutely necessary. You must be thinking of materialism, which causes upward from the bottom and is Godless and mindless, at least strictly speaking. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 19:39:49 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 12:45 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. Dear Roger, OK, it is just that L's God is being used as a means to by pass a problem that we now can solve. The role of the One to act as an external absolute observer is no longer a necessary hypothesis. This is not to say that I am an atheist! I see God as the Creative force of Life in the Omniverse. -- 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.
Re: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
Hi Richard Ruquist Monads are not compactified dimensions, although they may possibly refer to compactified dimensions. Monads are not much smaller than strings, which are physical, they are outside of spacetime and so have no size at all (are nonphysical). They only REPRESENT physical entities (strings, if yiou must). So they are more like street addresses rather than houses on a street. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 22:05:16 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/5/2012 8:17 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I thought we had already agreed that the string monads formed a Stone space in which the monads were totally distinctive.and therefore disconnected. It then becomes a Boolean algebra but at a vastly smaller scale than the atomic scale. Dear Richard, There is a key difference: Strings require a background space to be embedded in, Monads do not. A Stone space does not have an embedding space, but it does have a set complement. -- Onward! Stephen Monads are not strings. They are compactified dimensions and much smaller than strings which really are waves or fields. If monads were really outside of spacetime they would not influence anything in spacetime., -- 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.
Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/5/2012 10:05 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Monads are not strings. They are compactified dimensions and much smaller than strings which really are waves or fields. If monads were really outside of spacetime they would not influence anything in spacetime., Dear Richard, What are dimensions? In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it (for example, the point at 5 on a number line). A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it (for example, to locate a point on the surface of a sphere you need both its latitude and its longitude). The inside of a cube, a cylinder or a sphere is three-dimensional because three co-ordinates are needed to locate a point within these spaces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_(mathematics_and_physics) The same definition applies to the 6 wrapped-up dimensions of the Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds before they get wrapped up. At compactification (wrapping) these 6 dimensions seemingly align two at a time in the east-west direction, and two at a time in the north-south direction and two at a time in the up-down direction. At any point in 3D space, the two dimensions in each direction then are spliced into tiny lengths and curl up into (open or closed?) loops/surfaces with opposite spin resulting in tiny particles with about 500 topo holes each with a constraining higher-order EM flux winding thru all the holes and apparently spin capability in all 3 space dimensions but zero spin on the average.. I suspect that at that time they no longer should be called dimensions. String physicists call them moduli and they are very massive. The fields associated with the moduli, the moduli fields have mass above the GUT scale http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.2795v1.pdf. Below the GUT scale the moduli fields decay into the particles; electrons, quarks, etc. that are known to physics and perhaps Dark-Matter SUSY WIMPs. Dark Matter axions also exist along with the moduli fields but have their masses suppressed (by Planck mechanisms they say?) into a uniform distribution of mass from the GUT scale down to 10^-33 ev. Seems that axions are for sure Dark Matter and possibly the only Dark Matter depending on how the string physics unfolds. So the compact manifold CM particles or moduli composed of formerly six dimensions do not decay. They are with us today at a density between 10^90/cc and 10^80/cc, depending on the size of each CM and their spacing. According to Lubos Motl they are still as massive and rigid as ever, but they are decoupled from gauge particles by that same Planck mechanism (whatever that is) down to zero mass. So the 3D array of CM particles, what I call string monads, is rigid being made of remnant dimensions/surfaces that are much smaller than any string or physical particle. Their small size (very large energy) allows for the pair-production of any and all virtual gauge particles necessary for physical particle screening and interactions.. Richard -- 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.
Re: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Monads are not compactified dimensions, although they may possibly refer to compactified dimensions. Monads are not much smaller than strings, which are physical, they are outside of spacetime and so have no size at all (are nonphysical). They only REPRESENT physical entities (strings, if yiou must). So they are more like street addresses rather than houses on a street. Roger cannot be talking about string monads. Richard [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 22:05:16 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/5/2012 8:17 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I thought we had already agreed that the string monads formed a Stone space in which the monads were totally distinctive.and therefore disconnected. It then becomes a Boolean algebra but at a vastly smaller scale than the atomic scale. Dear Richard, There is a key difference: Strings require a background space to be embedded in, Monads do not. A Stone space does not have an embedding space, but it does have a set complement. -- Onward! Stephen Monads are not strings. They are compactified dimensions and much smaller than strings which really are waves or fields. If monads were really outside of spacetime they would not influence anything in spacetime., -- 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. -- 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: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On 12/6/2012 7:59 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King L's universe is a case of downward causation from the top (the One). So the top (the One) is absolutely necessary. You must be thinking of materialism, which causes upward from the bottom and is Godless and mindless, at least strictly speaking. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] mailto:rclo...@verizon.net] 12/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen Dear Roger, I disagree. The Humean idea of causation does not apply to Monads. Monads do not 'cause' changes in each other at all. Their perceptions just happen to be synchronous (and thus the possibility of bisimulation between them obtains and the appearance of exchange of information). -- 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: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
Hi Stephen P. King I don't recall ever finding a mistake in Leibniz's metaphysics, although there is a serious shortcoming in not completely defining what a substance is. How far down the scale of maginification must or can or should one go ? Leibniz seems to invite study, as he appearsd to have provided, not a thoroughly worked out metaphysics, but a toolkit (the monadology) for you to work it out yourself. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-03, 16:19:47 Subject: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas Dear Roger and Friends, You might find this paper of some interest: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.7188 Leibniz's Laws of Continuity and Homogeneity Mikhail G. Katz, David Sherry (Submitted on 30 Nov 2012) We explore Leibniz's understanding of the differential calculus, and argue that his methods were more coherent than is generally recognized. The foundations of the historical infinitesimal calculus of Newton and Leibniz have been a target of numerous criticisms. Some of the critics believed to have found logical fallacies in its foundations. We present a detailed textual analysis of Leibniz's seminal text Cum Prodiisset, and argue that Leibniz's system for differential calculus was free of contradictions. -- 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.
Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On 12/5/2012 5:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I don't recall ever finding a mistake in Leibniz's metaphysics, Dear Roger, I found his need to appeal to God to solve the PEH problem to be a big mistake, but at least he had a good excuse and did work out many of the needed ideas of computation theory... although there is a serious shortcoming in not completely defining what a substance is. Yes, substance is the universal solvent of the time. Nowadays we have Higgs bosons and Dark matter... same shit, different label. How far down the scale of maginification must or can or should one go ? As far down (and up!) as necessary to get to a level where one has structure that requires a different set of representations. Think of how at the molecular level one no longer has a physic of pressure and temperature, but one of van der Waals forces... Leibniz seems to invite study, as he appearsd to have provided, not a thoroughly worked out metaphysics, but a toolkit (the monadology) for you to work it out yourself. What impresses me the most about the monadology is that it presents a completely different mereological (relations between wholes and parts) system than the atoms in a void paradigm. Additionally, it gives an alternative to the usual innate property idea with its relationalism. I see in Leibniz' the first glimmerings of Non-Well Founded sets. -- 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: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 06:45:25 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 5:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I don't recall ever finding a mistake in Leibniz's metaphysics, Dear Roger, I found his need to appeal to God to solve the PEH problem to be a big mistake, but at least he had a good excuse and did work out many of the needed ideas of computation theory... although there is a serious shortcoming in not completely defining what a substance is. Yes, substance is the universal solvent of the time. Nowadays we have Higgs bosons and Dark matter... same shit, different label. How far down the scale of maginification must or can or should one go ? As far down (and up!) as necessary to get to a level where one has structure that requires a different set of representations. Think of how at the molecular level one no longer has a physic of pressure and temperature, but one of van der Waals forces... Leibniz seems to invite study, as he appearsd to have provided, not a thoroughly worked out metaphysics, but a toolkit (the monadology) for you to work it out yourself. What impresses me the most about the monadology is that it presents a completely different mereological (relations between wholes and parts) system than the atoms in a void paradigm. Additionally, it gives an alternative to the usual innate property idea with its relationalism. I see in Leibniz' the first glimmerings of Non-Well Founded sets. -- 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.
Re: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-05, 06:45:25 Subject: Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas On 12/5/2012 5:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I don't recall ever finding a mistake in Leibniz's metaphysics, Dear Roger, I found his need to appeal to God to solve the PEH problem to be a big mistake, but at least he had a good excuse and did work out many of the needed ideas of computation theory... although there is a serious shortcoming in not completely defining what a substance is. Yes, substance is the universal solvent of the time. Nowadays we have Higgs bosons and Dark matter... same shit, different label. How far down the scale of maginification must or can or should one go ? As far down (and up!) as necessary to get to a level where one has structure that requires a different set of representations. Think of how at the molecular level one no longer has a physic of pressure and temperature, but one of van der Waals forces... Leibniz seems to invite study, as he appearsd to have provided, not a thoroughly worked out metaphysics, but a toolkit (the monadology) for you to work it out yourself. What impresses me the most about the monadology is that it presents a completely different mereological (relations between wholes and parts) system than the atoms in a void paradigm. Additionally, it gives an alternative to the usual innate property idea with its relationalism. I see in Leibniz' the first glimmerings of Non-Well Founded sets. -- 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. -- 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: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On 12/5/2012 12:45 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. Dear Roger, OK, it is just that L's God is being used as a means to by pass a problem that we now can solve. The role of the One to act as an external absolute observer is no longer a necessary hypothesis. This is not to say that I am an atheist! I see God as the Creative force of Life in the Omniverse. -- 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: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/complete+Boolean+algebra. -- 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: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: L's monads have perception. They sense the entire universe. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King God isn't artificially inserted into L's metaphysics, it's a necessary part, because everything else (the monads) afre blind and passive. Just as necessary as the One is to Plato's metaphysics. Hi Richard, Yes, the monads have an entire universe as its perception. What distinguishes monads from each other is their 'point of view' of a universe. One has to consider the idea of closure for a monad, my conjecture is that the content of perception of a monad must be representable as an complete atomic Boolean algebra. -- Onward! Stephen I thought we had already agreed that the string monads formed a Stone space in which the monads were totally distinctive.and therefore disconnected. It then becomes a Boolean algebra but at a vastly smaller scale than the atomic scale. -- 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: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On 12/5/2012 8:17 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I thought we had already agreed that the string monads formed a Stone space in which the monads were totally distinctive.and therefore disconnected. It then becomes a Boolean algebra but at a vastly smaller scale than the atomic scale. Dear Richard, There is a key difference: Strings require a background space to be embedded in, Monads do not. A Stone space does not have an embedding space, but it does have a set complement. -- 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: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/5/2012 8:17 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: I thought we had already agreed that the string monads formed a Stone space in which the monads were totally distinctive.and therefore disconnected. It then becomes a Boolean algebra but at a vastly smaller scale than the atomic scale. Dear Richard, There is a key difference: Strings require a background space to be embedded in, Monads do not. A Stone space does not have an embedding space, but it does have a set complement. -- Onward! Stephen Monads are not strings. They are compactified dimensions and much smaller than strings which really are waves or fields. If monads were really outside of spacetime they would not influence anything in spacetime., -- 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: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas
On 12/5/2012 10:05 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Monads are not strings. They are compactified dimensions and much smaller than strings which really are waves or fields. If monads were really outside of spacetime they would not influence anything in spacetime., Dear Richard, What are dimensions? -- 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.
