Leibniz: a  scarely examined new pathway for cosmology which is uncannily 
similar, time-wise, to Smolin's


If you find this interesting, you might want to see my Leibniz site:


Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/18/2013 
See my Leibniz site at
http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The views of Lee Smolin as opposed to those of 
    the Platonist, Leibniz 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin

A. Leibniz would agree with these views of Smolin: 

A1. QM is unfinished.
A2. Time is not well understood. Leibniz did 
    not think of time as substantial or time as flowing, 
    it is just an indexed sequence of events.
A3. There is no multiverse, only the universe.


B. Leibniz would disagree with Smolin on these issues: 

B1. Smolin believes that computationalism is false (because there cannot
     be internal isomorphisms. Here the issue of Leibniz's
     pre-established harmony might be challenged. Hmmm).

B2. Smolin is not a Platonist. (Leibniz was.)




"Lee Smolin's view on the nature of time: 

    "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general 
relativity are both 
deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There 
is a deeper 
problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics."[11] 

Smolin does not believe that quantum mechanics is a "final theory": 

    "I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe 
this because 
I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of 
quantum mechanics 
that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard 
about them, 
and in the end I still can't make real sense of quantum theory as it 
stands."[12] 

In a 2009 article, Smolin has articulated the following philosophical views 
(the sentences in italics are quotations): 

    There is only one universe [I agree. RBC. ] There are no others, nor is 
there anything isomorphic to it. 
Smolin denies the existence of a "timeless" multiverse. Neither other universes 
nor copies of our universe ? within or outside ? exist.[clarification needed] 
No copies can 
exist within the universe, because no subsystem can 
model precisely the larger system it is a part of. No copies can exist outside 
the universe, because the universe is by definition all there is. This 
principle also 
rules out the notion of a mathematical object isomorphic in every respect to 
the 
history of the entire universe [computationalism - L would disagree. 
due to his concept of Pre-established Harmony. RBC] , a notion more 
metaphysical than scientific. 

    All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. 
Anything that 
is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything 
that is real is 
situated in time. Nothing exists timelessly [I disagree. This rules out 
Platonism, which Leibniz and I believe in. 
L also b elieved that time as not real, only an indexed set of situations. 
RBC]. 

    [The following paragraph is in accord with Leibniz, except that L held that 
only ideas are real - RBC] 
Everything that is real in a moment is a process of change leading to the next 
or 
future moments. Anything that is true is then a feature of a process in this 
process causing or implying
 future moments. This principle incorporates the notion that time is an aspect 
of causal relations. 
A reason for asserting it is that anything that existed for just one moment, 
without causing or implying 
some aspect of the world at a future moment, would be gone in the next moment. 
Things that 
persist must be thought of as processes leading to newly changed processes. 
An atom at one moment is a process leading to a different or a changed atom at 
the next moment. 

    Mathematics is derived from experience as a generalization of observed 
regularities, when time and particularity 
are removed. Under this heading, Smolin distances himself from mathematical 
platonism [ Leibniz and I are Platonists- RBC] , 
and gives his reaction to Eugene Wigner's "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of 
Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". 

He also opposes the anthropic principle, which he claims "cannot help us to do 
science."[13] [See below] 

He also advocates ?rinciples for an open future? which he claims underlie the 
work of both healthy scientific communities and 
democratic societies: ?(1) When rational argument from public evidence suffices 
to decide a question, it must be considered to be so decided. (2) When rational 
argument from public 
evidence does not suffice to decide a question, the community must encourage a 
diverse range of 
viewpoints and hypotheses consistent with a good-faith attempt to develop 
convincing public evidence.? (Time Reborn p 265.) 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Anthropic Principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

" The anthropic principle (from the Greek, anthropos, human) is the 
philosophical consideration 
that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the 
conscious life that observes it. 
Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the 
Universe has the age and the 
fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a 
result, they believe it is 
unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within 
the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.[1]"

[I hvae no problem personally with the AP, not sure as of the moment about L's 
view. RBC]


The views of Lee Smolin as opposed to those of 
    the Platonist, Leibniz 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin

A. Leibniz would agree with these views of Smolin: 

A1. QM is unfinished.
A2. Time is not well understood. Leibniz did 
    not think of time as substantial or time as flowing, 
    it is just an indexed sequence of events.
A3. There is no multiverse, only the universe.


B. Leibniz would disagree with Smolin on these issues: 

B1. Smolin believes that computationalism is false (because there cannot
     be internal isomorphisms. Here the issue of Leibniz's
     pre-established harmony might be challenged. Hmmm).

B2. Smolin is not a Platonist. (Leibniz was.)




"Lee Smolin's view on the nature of time: 

    "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general 
relativity are both 
deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There 
is a deeper 
problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics."[11] 

Smolin does not believe that quantum mechanics is a "final theory": 

    "I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe 
this because 
I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of 
quantum mechanics 
that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard 
about them, 
and in the end I still can't make real sense of quantum theory as it 
stands."[12] 

In a 2009 article, Smolin has articulated the following philosophical views 
(the sentences in italics are quotations): 

    There is only one universe [I agree. RBC. ] There are no others, nor is 
there anything isomorphic to it. 
Smolin denies the existence of a "timeless" multiverse. Neither other universes 
nor copies of our universe ? within or outside ? exist.[clarification needed] 
No copies can 
exist within the universe, because no subsystem can 
model precisely the larger system it is a part of. No copies can exist outside 
the universe, because the universe is by definition all there is. This 
principle also 
rules out the notion of a mathematical object isomorphic in every respect to 
the 
history of the entire universe [computationalism - L would disagree. 
due to his concept of Pre-established Harmony. RBC] , a notion more 
metaphysical than scientific. 

    All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. 
Anything that 
is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything 
that is real is 
situated in time. Nothing exists timelessly [I disagree. This rules out 
Platonism, which Leibniz and I believe in. 
L also b elieved that time as not real, only an indexed set of situations. 
RBC]. 

    [The following paragraph is in accord with Leibniz, except that L held that 
only ideas are real - RBC] 
Everything that is real in a moment is a process of change leading to the next 
or 
future moments. Anything that is true is then a feature of a process in this 
process causing or implying
 future moments. This principle incorporates the notion that time is an aspect 
of causal relations. 
A reason for asserting it is that anything that existed for just one moment, 
without causing or implying 
some aspect of the world at a future moment, would be gone in the next moment. 
Things that 
persist must be thought of as processes leading to newly changed processes. 
An atom at one moment is a process leading to a different or a changed atom at 
the next moment. 

    Mathematics is derived from experience as a generalization of observed 
regularities, when time and particularity 
are removed. Under this heading, Smolin distances himself from mathematical 
platonism [ Leibniz and I are Platonists- RBC] , 
and gives his reaction to Eugene Wigner's "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of 
Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". 

He also opposes the anthropic principle, which he claims "cannot help us to do 
science."[13] [See below] 

He also advocates ?rinciples for an open future? which he claims underlie the 
work of both healthy scientific communities and 
democratic societies: ?(1) When rational argument from public evidence suffices 
to decide a question, it must be considered to be so decided. (2) When rational 
argument from public 
evidence does not suffice to decide a question, the community must encourage a 
diverse range of 
viewpoints and hypotheses consistent with a good-faith attempt to develop 
convincing public evidence.? (Time Reborn p 265.) 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Anthropic Principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

" The anthropic principle (from the Greek, anthropos, human) is the 
philosophical consideration 
that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the 
conscious life that observes it. 
Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the 
Universe has the age and the 
fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a 
result, they believe it is 
unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within 
the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.[1]"

[I hvae no problem personally with the AP, not sure as of the moment about L's 
view. RBC]

Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/18/2013 
See my Leibniz site at
http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough

____________________________________________
DreamMail - New experience in email software www.dreammail.org


____________________________________________
DreamMail - New experience in email software www.dreammail.org



Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/19/2013 
See my Leibniz site at
http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough


Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/19/2013 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to