A brief synopsis of morphic resonance and the presence of the past according to the monadology.

[Roger Clough]

Here very briefly is how Leibniz might explain morphic resonance and the presence of the past.
in terms of his monadology. For that, see :

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/leibniz.htm


I am not a marxist.

1. Each substance or simple body has a physical representation in the phenomenol world
and a mental representation called a monad in the mental world. (This is Idealism)

2. The monads are closely related to morphisms. Each monad has within it a
homunculus (so that the monadology is throughly anthropomorphic),
representing roughly Aristotle's levels of being, some complete (man) , some primitive (a rock).

3. Also within each monad are a stack of "perceptions", which are not conventional perceptions (seen directly
by the monad) but are snapshots given it in a rapid series of updates by the Supreme Monad (God or the One).

4. These perceptions reflect all of the perceptions of the other monads (from their
own perspectives) in the universe, which is made up entirely of monads. So it's
a holographic universe.

5. The stack of past perceptions in each monad are its memory. Each contains a snapshot of the
entire universe of other monads.

6. Leibniz does not (so far I know) go into the past with any monad, but
each monad also contains a stack of "appetites", which are what the monad desires
at any instant. If there is a connection between the perceptions and the appetites,
the monad would inform the homunculus to repeat the past. Here's your habits.

In all the universe of monads acts like a computer program with the
Supreme Monad as its central processing unit.




[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/12/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

[Bruno Marchal]

On 13 Jan 2013, at 11:42, Roger Clough wrote:

> Here very briefly is how Leibniz might explain morphic resonance and
> the presence of the past.
> in terms of his monadology. For that, see :
>
> http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/leibniz.htm
>
>
> I am not a marxist.
>
> 1. Each substance or simple body has a physical representation in
> the phenomenol world
> and a mental representation called a monad in the mental world.
> (This is Idealism)

Too much fuzzy for me.

>
> 2. The monads are closely related to morphisms. Each monad has
> within it a
> homunculus (so that the monadology is throughly anthropomorphic),
> representing roughly Aristotle's levels of being, some complete
> (man) , some primitive (a rock).

I think a universal program might do the work, or a Löbian one. A
universal person.

>
> 3. Also within each monad are a stack of "perceptions", which are
> not conventional perceptions (seen directly
> by the monad) but are snapshots given it in a rapid series of
> updates by the Supreme Monad (God or the One).

That's the heart of the "aristotelian error", pehaps. This is only a
local probable universal machine. Reality is *much* vaster.

>
> 4. These perceptions reflect all of the perceptions of the other
> monads (from their
> own perspectives) in the universe, which is made up entirely of
> monads. So it's
> a holographic universe.

Not bad metaphor.

>
> 5. The stack of past perceptions in each monad are its memory. Each
> contains a snapshot of the
> entire universe of other monads.

There is something like that. It would be long to show the math here.

>
> 6. Leibniz does not (so far I know) go into the past with any monad,
> but
> each monad also contains a stack of "appetites", which are what the
> monad desires
> at any instant. If there is a connection between the perceptions and
> the appetites,
> the monad would inform the homunculus to repeat the past. Here's
> your habits.

OK. Leibniz was well inspired. He would have love the UMs. I think.
And Church's thesis, which make the U genuinely Universal.

>
> In all the universe of monads acts like a computer program with the
> Supreme Monad as its central processing unit.

The supreme monad are the man, the God of comp is far more beyond
(transcendental), at least from inside computerland.

Bruno

>
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
> 1/12/2013
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Richard Ruquist]

I speak of a 4 dimensional semi-infinite block universe that may be
the universally accessible storage of everything that ever happened,,
with calculations of every possibility for the future semi-infinity
(in my Neuoroquantolgy paper*) and suggest that it may store the
Akashic Records.

*Implications of a Multiverse String Cosmology
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=523402733411806220#editor/target=post;postID=2391911751582781301

wiki- Hinduism
In Hinduism Akasha means the basis and essence of all things in the
material world; the first material element created from the astral
world (Air, Fire, Water, Earth are the other four in sequence). It is
one of the Panchamahabhuta, or "five elements"; its main
characteristic is Shabda (sound). In Sanskrit the word means "space",
the very first element in creation.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 1:50:24 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

I speak of a 4 dimensional  semi-infinite block universe that may be
the universally accessible storage of everything that ever happened,,
with calculations of every possibility for the future semi-infinity
(in my Neuoroquantolgy paper*) and suggest that it may store the
Akashic Records.

If sense is the primitive, then the Akashic records are stored by default as there is nothing which erases what happens. It's not so much that it is universally accessible as it is universe itself. There is nothing which is not composed entirely out of the living Akashic records.

Our limited awareness of the present, which indeed may not be the true cutting edge of 'now' but a smaller set of nested 'nows', so that our more intuitive individuals or experiences tend to get a peek higher up the chain, not of things which *will* happen, but iconicized traces of things that are happening already in a larger scope of 'now' and *might* happen in some form or another which satisfies the theme of the intuitive expectation.

*Implications of a Multiverse String Cosmology
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=523402733411806220#editor/target=post;postID=2391911751582781301

Eh, multiverse isn't necessary with sense, and strings presume primitive spatial designs. Before you can have actual strings, you have to have an ontology of perception-participation which supports objects.