Roger , [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
8/14/2012
----- Receiving the following content -----
*From:* Stephen P. King <mailto:[email protected]>
*Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:[email protected]>
*Time:* 2012-08-12, 14:05:46
*Subject:* Re: pre-established harmony
Hi Roger,
I will interleave some remarks.
On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
composer/conductor.
Allow me to use the analogy a bit more but carefully to not go
too far. This "musical score", does it require work of some kind
to be created itself?
This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that intelligence
could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.
I argue that the Pre-Established Harmony (PEH) requires
solving anNP-Complete computational problem
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NP-complete_problems> that
has an infinite number of variables. Additionally, it is not
possible to maximize or optimize more than one variable in a
multivariate system
<http://www.wellesley.edu/Economics/weerapana/econ300/econ300pdf/lecture%20300-08.pdf>.
Unless we are going to grant God the ability to contradict
mathematical facts, which, I argue, is equivalent to granting
violations of the basis rules of non-contradiction, then God would
have to run an eternal computation prior to the creation of the
Universe. This is absurd! How can the existence of something have
a beginning if it requires an an infinite problem to be solved first?
Here is the problem: Computations require resources to run,
and if resources are not available then there is no way to claim
access to the information that would be in the solution that the
computation would generate. WE might try to get around this
problem the way that Bruno does by stipulating that the "truth" of
the solution gives it existence, but the fact that some
mathematical statement or sigma_1 sentence is true (in the prior
sense) does not allow it to be considered as accessible for use
for other things. For example, we could make valid claims about
the content of a meteor that no one has examined but we cannot
have any certainty about those claims unless we actually crack
open the rock and physically examine its contents.
The state of the universe as "moving harmoniously together"
was not exactly what the PEH was for Leibniz. It was the
synchronization of the simple actions of the Monads. It was a
coordination of the percepts that make up the monads such that,
for example, my monadic percept of living in a world that you also
live in is synchronized with your monadic view of living in a
world that I also live in such that we can be said to have this
email chat. Remember, Monads (as defined in the Monadology) have
no windows and cannot be considered to either "exchange"
substances nor are embedded in a common medium that can exchange
excitations. The entire "common world of appearances" emerges from
and could be said to supervene upon the synchronization of
internal (1p subjective) Monadic actions.
I argue that the only way that God could find a solution to
the NP-Complete problem is to make the creation of the universe
simulataneous with the computations so that the universe itself is
the computer that is finding the solution. This idea is discussed
by several people including David Deutsch, Lee Smolin, Roger
Penrose and Stuart Kaufman in their books. This implies that God's
creative act is not a singular event but an eternal process.
I suppose that this accords with Leibniz's belief that God,
whoc is good, constructed the best possible world where
as a miniomum, that least physics is obeyed.
Yes.
Hence
Voltaire's foolish criticism of Leibniz in Candide that how
could the volcanic or earthquake disaster in Lisbon be
part of the most perfect world ?
Voltair was a poor fool that could not understand the simple
idea that only one variable can be maximized. Perhaps he was not a
fool and knew the facts but wanted to discredit Leibniz's superior
ideas.
Thus, because physics must be obeyed, sometimes crap happens.
Indeed. One might even argue that the existence of evil in the
world is a consequence of choice; that only in a world completely
devoid of choice might it be possible for crap to never occur. But
this can be shown to have a vanishingly small probability or even
zero chance of actually occurring, as 1) the NP-Complete problem
would have to first be solved and 2) there would have to be a very
happy "accident" where no one ever happen to be doing the actions
which would lead them to see evil - given that evil is a valuation
that occurs in our minds and is not an actual extant state of the
world.
* As a related and possibly explanatory point, L's universe
completely is nonlocal.
Indeed! I argue that L's monadology almost exactly anticipated
the concept of a quantum mechanical system, since a QM system by
definition is a windowless monad that never exchanges substances
with others and is "simple" by L's definition. All notions of
interactions in QM are defined internal to single QM systems as
the scattering states of its Hamiltonian. This latter idea was
explored and written about by Prof. Hitoshi Kitada as found here:
http://www.metasciences.ac/Articles/works.html
Roger , [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
8/11/2012
----- Receiving the following content -----
*From:* Stephen P. King <mailto:[email protected]>
*Receiver:* everything-list
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Time:* 2012-08-11, 01:56:41
*Subject:* Re: Where's the agent ? Who or what does stuff and
is aware of stuff ?
Hi Roger,
I have noticed and read your posts. Might you write some
remarks about Leibniz' concept of pre-established harmony?
On 8/10/2012 8:53 AM, Roger wrote:
Hence I follow Leibniz, even though he's difficult and some say
contradictory. That agent or soul or self you have is your
monad, the only (alhough indirectly) perceiving/acting/feeling
agent in all of us, but currently missing in neuroscience and
neurophilosophy.
--
--
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 [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.
