On 9/4/2012 10:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
IMHO I would put it that life begets life, no means required.
Just as at Christmas time in church we pass a flame
from one candle to another.
Creation was like an ignition of life like a flame,
like lighting a match.
Hi Roger,
But you are still not seeing the point that there is a difference
between ontologies that postulate a special initial event that holds
globally for all worlds and ontologies that consider initial events as
the dual of event horizons, e.g they are local events and not global
absolutes. I am inclined to believe in an Infinite and eternal Omniverse
within which our local universe is just a finite projection of the
whole. This includes the idea that it will appear to have an initial
event simply because the observers in this universe cannot look back any
further than our common event horizon. What Life is or is not is a
debate for some other time.
Roger Clough, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
9/4/2012
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 <mailto:[email protected]>
*Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:[email protected]>
*Time:* 2012-09-03, 15:00:45
*Subject:* Re: Toward emulating life with a monadic computer
On 9/3/2012 10:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
1) The pre-established harmony is beyond the laws of physics.
For nothing is perfect in this contingent world. The preestablished
harmony was designed before the beginning of gthe world,
and since God is good, presumably gthe pre-established
harmony is the best possible one in a contingent world.
Hi Roger,
One cannot make claims that are self-contradictions. Creation
can not happen if the means that allow the creation are not
available prior to the creation.
One indication is the sheer improbability of the structure of the
physical universe so that life is possible.
I liken it to a divine musical composition with God as the
conductor, and various objects playing parts in harmony.
2) The monads have no windows, so they are all blind.
The perceptions are images are provided by God, or the Supreme monad,
the only one able to see all and know all. Each monad
is provided with a continually updated view of the perceptions\
all all of the mother monad perceptions, so it k nows everything
in the universe from its own point of view.
3) I have been criticized for calling the monadic structure as
tree-like,
and I could be wrong. But as I understand them, the monads
can be described by category theory if that's the right word,
since each substance can be desribed by its predicates and
presumably the predicates have predicates and
so on.
Since all of the monads necessarily are within the supreme
monad, it would be the root of the tree. Of course a tree
with an infinite number of branches and subbranches, etc.
--
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
