spudboy...@aol.com
11:10 AM (44 minutes ago)

How far down, or up, do the Monads go? Perhaps how for in or out. Do monads
stop at the Planck length, or the Beckenstein Bound?? Monads seem, somehow
more primal then an average particle. I could see neutrinos being real
monads, because they can alter from an electron neutrino to a muon, or tau
neturino, which for me seems magical, as well as being able to penetrate a
light year of solid lead, supposedly.

Hi,

As a concept, the depth of monads is infinite; every monads reflects and
thus is defined by all other monads. If this is a perfectly homogeneous and
symmetric reflection, then all monads will be identical and thus there will
be only one, by Leibniz' principle of the identity of indiscernibles. If we
break this symmetry and consider only finite collections of monads, then
maybe we can relate such concepts as the Planck length and Beckenstein's
bound. breaking more symmetries can manifest other groups that are
associated with particles, etc. What must be understood is that monads are
not 'in a space'; they are indivisible units of perception and as such all
that can be percieved from one point of view is 'contained in' and defines
a single monad.
  When we consider that a monad is the perfect representation of an
observer and its point of view, we can rederive all of physics without
having to assume some disembodied superobserver that is 'nowhere'. It has
been suggested that space-time (and the Lorentz relations) itself can be
derived from ordered lattices of such observers.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 11:10 AM, <spudboy...@aol.com> wrote:

> How far down, or up, do the Monads go? Perhaps how for in or out. Do
> monads stop at the Planck length, or the Beckenstein Bound?? Monads seem,
> somehow more primal then an average particle. I could see neutrinos being
> real monads, because they can alter from an electron neutrino to a muon, or
> tau neturino, which for me seems magical, as well as being able to
> penetrate a light year of solid lead, supposedly.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net>
> To: - Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net>
> Sent: Tue, May 7, 2013 7:09 am
> Subject: Monads within monads within monads-- Leibniz, strings, and atomic
> structure
>
>  Monads within monads within monads-- matter, strings and atomic structure
>
>
> First I'm going to have to take you, searchlight in hand, through
> the darkest, most difficult topic in Leibniz's philosophy, which
> is difficult for beginners, especially if they're materialists.
> The dark passageway is what Leibniz means by "substance"
> and "monad". Leibniz sometimes refers  to substance as if it
> were  a description of a physical object, but these both only
> apply to mental entities.
>
> Leibniz  developed his idealistic theory of monads before anything was known
>
> about atomic physics, so, although being aware of the possibility from the
>
> ancient Greeks, he did not include atoms specifically in his theory.
> Instead, he used Aristotle's concept of substance, but allowed it to
> be continually changing. In place of physical atoms, he based his philosophy
>
> on the corresponding mental quantity, the monad.
> Without going into great detail, Leibniz used an atom of mind,
> the monad,
>
> Leibniz began by asking, in the tradition of Descartes, if there might
> be any
> fundamental quantity, anything certain, on which he could base his
> philosophy.
> He found that everything in spacetime could be divided  an infinite
> number of
> times, so that the fundamental quantity must not be physical. Today we
> know that
> there may be a size limit, the atom or fundamental particles, but one
> cannot
> isolate these, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.  Here I use
> isolatability instead of infinite divisibility to dismiss anything physical
> (anything in spacetime) as being fundamental. That includes space and
> time, which are infinitely divisible. Also, there are arguments
> by others such as Paul Davis that matter is not fundamental.
>
> Next then we ask whether mind has fundamental units
> on which to build a philosophy. If you recall the double aspect
> theory of mind, you can see that parts of the brain, while
> not being fundamental, possess fundamental functions,
> such as units of memory, or visual or sensory motor functions.
> So it appears that mind, a mental substance, can be divided up
> into fundamental or logical wholes or concepts.
> Leibniz then used these units of mind or monads as the
> fundamental "mental atoms" of existence.
>
> A monad then is a complete concept, a whole. a simple substance
> of one part. A monad may and probably does have variations within,
> but it is a whole, constantly changing entity
> which, being so, does not have a
> boundary within, as long as we assess the whole as a single function.
> Thus man as a monad contains a brain as a monad which contains
> neurons as monads. Note that, although each of these monads
> is physically within the others, the monads are to be classed
> as functions within functions, and may not be directly related to
> the physical monads.
>
> A piece of matter would mentally consist of a monad for the whole,
> inside of which (here both mentally and physically) are a huge
> number of monads for the atoms. Then if we look further, we
> might have within the atom monad, monads for its subparticles
> such as electrons, protons and neutrons. Similary each
> atom is made up of strings. I would suspect that the various modes
> of vibration would be further monads inside the basic atom
> monad. Higher frequency strings inside lower frequency strings.
>
> If we look at this abstractly, as on a spreadsheet,  we see that
> the universe can be characterized topically, as monads within
> monads, depending on how finely we focus our vision.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 5/7/2013
> See my Leibniz site at
> http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/SiyGpEa_WzU/unsubscribe?hl=en
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to