monad

[sushi]

is monad a good valid unprovable theory or is it irrelevant?

lebniz believed that many things are made of and broken down monad

it also connects the consciousness with reality

unfortunately it lacks valid scientific proof and evidence.

 

[ZenRaiden]

unfortunately it lacks valid scientific proof and evidence.

Many things that are not practical do.
Generally science is just better version of knowledge.

Generally speaking I think ideas in philosophy are kind of dick measuring concept often.
To me the fundamental stuff is hard to know.
We certainly don't actually know.
Even atomism was kind of correct, but useless for thousands of years.

We even went beyond atom.
I think dwelling on these sort of ideas is fun, but kind of pointless often.

Imagine this. Even if Leibnitz is correct. What the hell are we supposed to do about it?

Currently string theory has the big dick energy.
Who knows in 10 years it might be springs, or ovals with jelly goo inside.

I really honestly think there is a point where a philosopher has to stop and ask themselves what ho, am I doing this right?

There are physics concepts such as plank length or plank time etc.
Essentially at some point you get to know the minimum blocks.

But I doubt the universe has to be some weird version of minecraft. It can certainly be more sophisticated.

 

[sushi]

How is the universe different from minecraft though.

 

[ZenRaiden]

How is the universe different from minecraft though.

I don't know. Everything with sufficient complexity can always be reduced to something simpler. Ergo 1 and 0 digital logic can define the world just as well as some analog computer.
But just because the computers today think in 0s and 1s does not mean it corresponds to reality. It does not mean the world is defacto made of 0s and 1s. Its just how the language of information evolved.
Realistically how we convey information or how we conceptualize it is different from what it actually IS.

For instance what if the there is no bottom or no up. What if after quantum size world there is even tinier world? What if the world can be broken down infinitely.
What if its the same way up wards. So the world can be bigger infinitely.
What if there is edge of universe, and beyond that edge there is another universe, or dimension, or another set of physics with completely different way of working.

So the assumption there is this monad. IS assumption not fact. Its just lack of imagination in my book.
We need to kind of free our mind. Just because we cannot see it or understand it, does not mean its not there.
For our human brains these types of thoughts are ultimately non pragmatic. It does not feed you, you don't get rewarded for it in tangible ways. Even if true, which is possible, the idea it self is kind of built around concepts.

Building a concept upon a concept alone is mental exercise nothing more.
An abstract concept build on an abstract concept, built atop another abstract concept.

So what if the world is made of tiny vibrating circles, and hot and cold snowflakes on below quantum level. That would pretty much negate monads.
And the answer is we don't know.

SO the idea we can inherently think our way into reality is not always true.
Further more the idea that the universe could be an illusion is also strong.
That means this universe could be made of single beam of energy, like a photon.

 

[sushi]

physics did not capture consciousness and experience

i suppose that monad theory is trying to capture cosciousness and experience, that consciousness and experience is not subjective, but objective in the universe.

But the human mind is imperfect that it only has a skewed perspective of it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

physics did not capture consciousness and experience

That can change any minute now.

i suppose that monad theory is trying to capture cosciousness and experience, that consciousness and experience is not subjective, but objective in the universe.

It depends how we define consciousness.
What is it?
Can you feel your pinky when you think about it hard?
Can you feel your right ear? Can you feel both at the same time.
Can you train yourself to feel more?
Is thoughts consciousness or emotion?
If both are consciousness can you walk outside of your body and observe things purely by consciousness?
Is our awareness inherently absent of physical? If so are we aware of more than we can perceive by our bodies?
These are kind of fundamental questions.
I think the answer is yes for all questions. And then some more.
We really don't have rational concept for consciousness or at least I have not heard one.
But the easiest way to learn to use consciousness is with or without magical thinking includes our ability to use it.
We kind of take it for granted.
I assume there is some energy to it. But not all of it might be tangible in our understanding of physics.

 

[onesteptwostep]

unfortunately it lacks valid scientific proof and evidence.

There are many things in reality where things are taken as is without having scientific proof or evidence. The structure of language for example, how can you prove whether what I am saying and the meaning that's being conveyed is true? It's possible that some of the wording may be misread or distorted, but most of the time, given the same 'language game', we are able to understand each other. How can we prove epistomology in that sense?

There's also the psychophysical harmony/parallelism: how is it that physical reality always matches with our sensory capacity? (this is basically the analytic, modern rehashing of Leibniz's pre-established harmony.)

Justice or ethics is another easy one. How does legal ruling have basis in scientific methods? We could use science to discover the legal framework or language of the case in itself, but the ruling comes at the discretion of the judge. Rulings come from the judge rather than the method. The case of abortion is a good example here.

 

[Black Rose]

There's also the psychophysical harmony/parallelism: how is it that physical reality always matches with our sensory capacity? (this is basically the analytic, modern rehashing of Leibniz's pre-established harmony.)

According to Leibniz, the entire universe was created by God to be in a pre-established harmony, so nothing in the universe actually influences anything else.[6] Considering psychophysical parallelism thusly, you could imagine the mind and body as two identical clocks. The clocks will always be in agreement because of the pre-existing harmony between them, but will never interact. And like the two clocks, no interaction or causation among the monads that compose the mind and body is necessary because they are already not all atoms are ensynchronized.

In a quantum field, as to my understanding, the only interaction that occurs is when the proximity of fields increases the likelihood of field collapse. By way of entanglement, fields come close to each other, and then at a distance when one collapses the other collapses pointing in the opposite direction as the other. Yet we cannot predict what direction they will be only that they will point in opposite directions.

I think that the mind of any organism entangles itself in the oscillations of each brain cell. That way they can all be together in synchrony and be unified as one consciousness. Entanglement is still unknown how it is possible to be non-local in effects but it should happen within a proximal distance of an organism's atoms. Not all fields are entangled and seem to merge and fade away from our consciousness.

 

[onesteptwostep]

There's also the psychophysical harmony/parallelism: how is it that physical reality always matches with our sensory capacity? (this is basically the analytic, modern rehashing of Leibniz's pre-established harmony.)

According to Leibniz, the entire universe was created by God to be in a pre-established harmony, so nothing in the universe actually influences anything else.[6] Considering psychophysical parallelism thusly, you could imagine the mind and body as two identical clocks. The clocks will always be in agreement because of the pre-existing harmony between them, but will never interact. And like the two clocks, no interaction or causation among the monads that compose the mind and body is necessary because they are already not all atoms are ensynchronized.

In a quantum field, as to my understanding, the only interaction that occurs is when the proximity of fields increases the likelihood of field collapse. By way of entanglement, fields come close to each other, and then at a distance when one collapses the other collapses pointing in the opposite direction as the other. Yet we cannot predict what direction they will be only that they will point in opposite directions.

I think that the mind of any organism entangles itself in the oscillations of each brain cell. That way they can all be together in synchrony and be unified as one consciousness. Entanglement is still unknown how it is possible to be non-local in effects but it should happen within a proximal distance of an organism's atoms. Not all fields are entangled and seem to merge and fade away from our consciousness.

This is matter on matter though, not matter on mind (or vice versa).

 

[Black Rose]

This is matter on matter though, not matter on mind (or vice versa).

Could be but then matter is not something I believe exists.

We do not know what matters is nor the mind.

So to me, everything is just mental acting on the mental.

 

[onesteptwostep]

This is matter on matter though, not matter on mind (or vice versa).

Could be but then matter is not something I believe exists.

We do not know what matters is nor the mind.

So to me, everything is just mental acting on the mental.

Okay, so this is you speaking to you.

 

[Black Rose]

This is matter on matter though, not matter on mind (or vice versa).

Could be but then matter is not something I believe exists.

We do not know what matters is nor the mind.

So to me, everything is just mental acting on the mental.

Okay, so this is you speaking to you.

Intersubjectivity means we can have separate minds but that does not mean we really have anything that is concrete like dirt being hard balls or Greek atoms.

I can see green and you can see green but would green be anything like hard balls?

Everything could just be flux - waves with no solidity to speak of.

God has everything moving as God wants it to move but why make anything that he would not be in complete alignment with as an essence of himself?

All things that exist are just intrinsic mental thoughts.

If I can dream a reality can't God do the same at the largest scale possible?

And if matter is not hard balls but mind stuff then God is with us inside as some dream stuff creating a mirage of himself. A likeness, an image in all contents.

I take a rock and it is God unifying the relations between it and me.

Matter is no more than an infinitesimal relation.

I have me and you have you and God mediates all transposes.

Solipsism is not the case because Monads are hierarchical.

The Federated internship has what to God is the top and we below.

God places what is the dot on all things that move(transport) with his will. Even Isaac Newton did not know what "motion" was. Will as placement by some high desire. hardness is not real.

 

[onesteptwostep]

This is matter on matter though, not matter on mind (or vice versa).

Could be but then matter is not something I believe exists.

We do not know what matters is nor the mind.

So to me, everything is just mental acting on the mental.

Okay, so this is you speaking to you.

Intersubjectivity means we can have separate minds but that does not mean we really have anything that is concrete like dirt being hard balls or Greek atoms.

I can see green and you can see green but would green be anything like hard balls?

Everything could just be flux - waves with no solidity to speak of.

God has everything moving as God wants it to move but why make anything that he would not be in complete alignment with as an essence of himself?

All things that exist are just intrinsic mental thoughts.

If I can dream a reality can't God do the same at the largest scale possible?

And if matter is not hard balls but mind stuff then God is with us inside as some dream stuff creating a mirage of himself. A likeness, an image in all contents.

I take a rock and it is God unifying the relations between it and me.

Matter is no more than an infinitesimal relation.

I have me and you have you and God mediates all transposes.

Solipsism is not the case because Monads are hierarchical.

The Federated internship has what to God is the top and we below.

God places what is the dot on all things that move(transport) with his will. Even Isaac Newton did not know what "motion" was. Will as placement by some high desire. hardness is not real.

Ah, AK, I can really feel you searching for God in this post. God will not let you down because you have faith within what you have. It's honestly inspiring.

I hope that you'll do the best you can with what you have.