Toward emulating life with a monadic computer

[Roger Clough]

 

Toward emulating life with a monadic computer

 

In a previous discussion we showed that the natural numbers qualify as

Leibnizian monads, suggesting the possibility that other mathematical

forms might similarly be treated as monadic structures.

 

At the same time, Leibniz's monadology describes a computational

architecture  that  is capable of emulating not only the dynamic physical

universe, but a biological universe as well.

 

In either case, the entire universe might be envisioned as a gigantic

digital golem, a living figure whose body consists of a categorical

nonliving substructure and whose mind/brain is the what Leibniz called  the "supreme

monad". The supreme monad might be thought of as a monarch,

since it  governs the operation of its passive monadic substructures

according to a "preestablished harmony." In addition, each monad in the system

would possess typical monadic substructures, and possibly further monadic

substructures wuithin this, depending spending on the level of complexity

desired.

 

Without going into much detail at this point, Leibniz's monadology might be considered

as the operating system of such a computer, with the central processing chip

as its supreme monad. This CPU continually updates all of the monads

in the system according the following scheme.  Only the CPU is active,

while all of the sub-structure monads (I think in a logical, tree-like structure)  are passive.

Each monad contains a dynamically changing image (a "reflection") of all of the

other monads, taken from its particular point of view.  These are called its perceptions,

which might be thought of as records of the state of any given monad at any

given time. This state comprising an image of the entire universe of monads,

constantly being updated by the Supreme monad or CPU. In addition to

the perceptions, each monad also has a constantly changing set of appetites.

And all of these are coorddinated to fit a pre-established harmony.

 

It might be that the pre-established harmony is simply what is happening

in the world outside the computer.

 

Other details of this computer should be forthcoming.

 

 

 

 

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net

9/2/2012

Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him

so that everything could function."

[Craig Weinberg]

First I would say that numbers are not monads because numbers have no experience. They have no interior or exterior realism, but rather are the interstitial shadows of interior-exterior events. Numbers are a form of common sense, but they are not universal sense and they are limited to a narrow channel of sense which is dependent upon solid physicality to propagate. You can't count with fog.

Secondly I think that the monadology makes more sense as the world outside the computer. Time and space are computational constructs generated by the meta-juxtaposition of sense*(matter+entropy) and (matter/matter)-sense. Matter is the experience of objecthood. Numbers are the subjective-ized essence of objects

Craig.
 

[Stephen P. King]

Dear Roger,

    I am most interested in a detailed discussion of the

1) "preestablished harmony"
2) reflections or images
3) Tree-like structure
4) whatever might be "exterior" to a monad.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

Sorry. I guess I should call them monadic numbers. Not numbers as monads,

but monads as numbers.

 

The numbers I am thinking of as monads are those flying by in a particular

computation.   Monads are under constant change. As to history, perceptions,

appetites, those would be some king of context as in a subprogram

which coud be stored in files.

 

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net

9/3/2012

Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him

so that everything could function."

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-09-02, 08:28:10

Subject: Re: Toward emulating life with a monadic computer

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/s2J5aGxCEigJ.
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.

[Roger Clough]

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.

 

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.

 

 

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net

9/3/2012

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: 2012-09-02, 10:32:01

Subject: Re: Toward emulating life with a monadic computer

[Craig Weinberg]

Hi Roger,

I think of number as the conceptual continuity between the behaviors of physical things - whether it is the interior view of things as experiences through time or the exterior view of experiences as things. Numbers don't fly by in a computation, that's a cartoon. All that happens is that something which is much smaller and faster than we are, like a semiconductor or neuron, is doing some repetitive, sensorimotive behavior which tickles our own sense and motive in a way that we can understand and control. Computation doesn't exist independently as an operation in space, it is a common sense of matter, just as we are - but one does not reduce to the other. Feeling, emotion, and thought does not have to be made of computations, they can be other forms of sensible expression. Counting is one of the things that we, and most everything can do in one way or another, but nothing can turn numbers into anything other than more numbers except non-numerical sense.

Craig

[Stephen P. King]

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.

 

 

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

I can't see any usefulness for a computer or calculator

where the same number is recalculated over and over.

Think of a Turing tape running through a processor.

 

 

 

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net

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: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-09-03, 11:12:36

Subject: Re: monads as numbers

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/wG3SzF54AHgJ.

[Roger Clough]

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.

 

 

 

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net

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

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-09-03, 15:00:45

Subject: Re: Toward emulating life with a monadic computer

[Stephen P. King]

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.

--

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.

[Craig Weinberg]

Hi Roger,

Not sure what you are getting at. We can't see any usefulness for eating chocolate until the bar is gone, but we still do it.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King

 

There was only one Big Bang, at least this time around,

because they have been able to measure it happening

about 19 billion years ago. There are otgher measurments

such as the background radiation that tell us more about it.

 

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net

9/5/2012

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: 2012-09-04, 11:55:08

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

I obviously misunderstood your point.

I still don't.

 

 

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net

9/5/2012

Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him

so that everything could function."

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-09-04, 14:58:37

Subject: Re: Re: monads as numbers

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/y-jzVSfeHfkJ.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:45:06 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

I obviously misunderstood your point.

I still don't.

 

If there's something in particular I can clarify, let me know and I'll try my best.

Craig