Hi David Bonnell All philosophy is hypothesis. But you could also say that all science is hypothesis looking for data to prove it. Lee Smolin, an inventor of string theory, finally abandoned strings there is no way (so far found) to physically prove it. And physical proof is the hallmark of science. Smolin is now exploring Einstein's energy-momentum tensor in search of new ways to understand gravity. He believes that there's some unknown as yet quantity besides mass that causes space to curve. Instead of xyzt, he uses energy and the three momentum vectors as the plane of action. What is it, besides mass, that causes the plane to curve ?
Leibniz got started because although Newton's theory worked (at least up to a point), L had some doubts how a physical brain could interect tiwht a mental mind. Two different substances--what would the interface be like ? David Chalmers calls this the "hard problem". L surmised that it was a nonproblem because physical entities were only appearances (not that they didn't have weight). L also had doubts about an absolute space and time, and he was off to the races. It wasn't until Einstein that the problem was seriously looked into because science had been hijacked by the materialists. Materialism is a cult that has had disasterpous effects, not the least of which is atheism. Simlarly with "dark matter". As far as I can see, its a non-problem. Proper adjustment of Einstein's gravity constant clears it up. But my overwhelmingly main interest is not in understanding the physical universe, it's in understanding the nonphysical universe that, like mind, which doesn't space coordinates). Leibniz seems the only light to follow in that domain. Dr. Roer B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: David Bonnell Receiver: Roger Clough Time: 2013-06-19, 23:46:04 Subject: Re: Response to Dave---Re: Re: A speculation on life after death andghosts in Leibniz'smetaphysics. >The whole Leibniz/monad concept is hypothesis, not even theory, and unless I >am missing something, has no experimental or other evidence to support it, >except religious assertion. But, I am only dipping and choosing here... As for >the idea that "dark matter" could be the matrix for this conceptual space, not >very likely - There would need to be another force we also have no evidence >for to provide the underpinning for interactions between dark matter particles >- as we now think about dark matter, it is supposed to be massive particles >that only feel the "weak" force, and the theory underpinning weak force >interactions does not provide for any stable binding processes (in fact, the >weak force is actually sort of an anti-electromagnetism that undoes stable >bindings, thus resulting in failures of both EM and the strong force, which >causes radioactive decay (mostly a nuclear process). Thus, based on most of >the successful parts of particle theory, it seems pretty unlikely that dark >matter does much of anything that could be thought of as possibly "making" any >sort of structure at all. This view is strongly supported by gravitational >lensing studies that clearly show dark matter interacting via gravity, and >absolutely NOT with itself. Collisions of galaxies show gravity interactions >of matter are far more important to the structures of matter accumulations >than for where the dark matter is. So, unless there is a new binding force we >don't have a clue about, and some sort of instantaneous communication >associated with that binding, dark matter as we "see" it is far too dispersed >to be enough to detect. I would note that its density in the solar system is >essentially undetectable! > >You might have more luck thinking of what supersymmetric matter partners of >our known force particles (Photinos, for instance), might provide the basis. >But first, I would think that you need to have a better, predictive formalism >that provides some means for thinking that monads are in fact a part of our >reality. David >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Roger Clough" >To: "David Bonnell" >Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:14:11 AM >Subject: Response to Dave---Re: Re: A speculation on life after death and >ghosts in Leibniz'smetaphysics. > >Hi David Bonnell > >DAVE: Just a sideline thought here - I have already rambled on about my >thinking as regards L-monads and that metaphysics. You note below that >cremation would not harm "subtle" bodies - which pretty much asserts that they >are inherently NOT physical (i.e., not composed of matter as we know it). > >ROGER: The subtle body is associated with our Soul (which L calls spirit). >In Aristotelian terms it is the immaterial form or shape of our body. >L is an Idealist, so in reality we only appear to be physical, we are >actuually ideas (monads or identities). Monads cannot be created or >destroyed except possibly by God's action, so our soul has been here since >creation and will probably be here until the Last Day. So >cremation presents no problem. You can destroy the body but not the soul, >as Paul says. > >DAVE: this could imply a lot of things, (1) some form of matter that we know >exists ("dark matter) but has no noticeable interaction with what physicists >now refer to as baryonic matter - what is best thought of as matter with >electrical charge sensitivity, so the material interactions we (sort-of) >understand as electron cloud binding are not involved; (2) some sort of field >effect, perhaps tied to the Higgs field (an all-pervasive construct that does >interact with baryonic matter by non-physical means); >(3) or some nuclear phenomena that no one has detected, linking nuclear >force-bound particles over macroscopic distances... >>There are lots more ideas of this flavor that one could consider -- we >>probably still don't know enough about physics to even dream -- most also are >>so difficult to test that even our current efforts are like taking a teaspoon >>of seawater at the edge of an ocean to try and predict details of oceanic and >>pelagic behavior over the whole earth for all time. > >ROGER: My own uninformed view is that Dark Energy and therefore Dark Matter >are not physical, >they are immaterial, they are what serve to expand space. They are not >extended in space, >they are part of, or functions of, Mind. One could say that they are physical >laws or principles but not physical objects. > >DAVE: >With that prelude, back to the sideline thought - some religions >consider cremation an effort to thwart God's plan to resurrect us in >rehabilitated bodies - the thought is that by scattering particles and >molecules of our bodies in such a wide fashion (many who are cremated want >their ashes even scattered), we are somehow "testing" God's plan for >resurrection. If your L-monad idea (or in fact any non-physical link idea) has >a basis in reality (a little hard for me to use the word reality where the >L-monad concepts are in play!), then this religious concept may (or may not, >hard to decide) have any basis in reality. I know many believe that God knows >where every molecule, every boson, every tiniest particle of our universe is >at all times - an idea that surely implies that God is much much bigger than >our universe!), but also allows no room for free will... All these hard >concepts also have to be dealt with by any non-physical approach to reality, >and have to handle both the idea of free will and predestination. One of the >interesting things about the physical universe as currently held by modern >science is that the uncertainty principle sort of naturally >provides microscopic support for a free will-based universe, but one ruled by >hard and fast mathematical laws. Setting on top of that is the concepts of >statistical mechanics (Boltzmann, et al), that set the stage for more >macroscopic >"free will" behaviors via chaos theories. Then there is the (currently >classical) ideas of general relativity that firmly set the propagation limits >for any kind of information at the speed of light, which tells us that we can >never know in any kind >of overarching detail the state of any macroscopic region of spacetime well >enough to have the kind of knowledge that would allow even a classical theory >of reality the ability to treat reality as an absolutely predictable manifold. > >Yet, all these ideas have the underlying mathematical basis that does >constrain reality in awesome detail... > > >ROGER: Again, one can destroy the body, but not the soul, which would cling to >whatever ashes are left of you.. > >L believed that everything in the universe is alive (even dead bodies, or >anything physical--extended in space), >because they are possessed by their souls or monads, which give them identity >and entelechy (all life, even rocks, has striving, striving for completion or >for what they are intended to be ) >So nothing is destroyed (except possibly by God). > >> >> >DAVE: It is interesting that Leibniz is best known for his development of the >infinitesimal calculus (almost in parallel with Newton, a tool which is the >real basis for all classical theories (and, in fact modern QM theories, as >well), that are the heart of >our current scientific approach to reality. It is pretty easy to compare his >monad concepts with that of, say, Kepler, who took the observations of Tycho >Brahe and ideas of Copernicus to develop ideas which, through the calculus of >Newton and Leibniz eventually destroyed earth-centered cosmologies and led to >our modern views of astrophysics. Yet, Kepler tried his whole life to >incorporate the Platonic solids into a theory of the universe (as our solar >system was thought of in his day) - c.f. his Mysterium Cosmographicum. Such >brilliance, yet led astray by a beauty only he could see, and which was not >reality. In some ways, there is a lot of thought today that the seeming >mathematical beauty of string >theory is another "beauty" trap, leading much of theoretical physics astray. >When using historical concepts as a guiding light, it seems to me, one needs >to also use historical dead-ends as a reminder that not all good ideas are >part of our reality. >> >ROGER: L's thinking was completely different from Newton's on the invention of >calculus. >For this, see the interesting video >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObPg3ki9GOI > > >> >>David >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Roger Clough" >>To: "- Roger Clough" >>Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:53:21 PM >>Subject: A speculation on life after death and ghosts in Leibniz's >>metaphysics. >> >> >>A speculation on life after death and ghosts in Leibniz's metaphysics. >> >> >>I have found from one of Leibniz's letters that each monad also is attached >>to a "subtle body" >>of the individual , which stays attached after death (possibly appearing as >>ghosts). >>Similar to some Christian accounts, wherein we sleep after death until >>resurrected >>in the Second Coming. >> >>Cremation would not harm these subtle bodies. >> >> >>Anybody that criticizes materialism, which is a cult, will get >>ostracized. It's a sad condition. L is not very explicit on life after death, >> >>no doubt because Jesus is missing from his metaphysics. >> >>But we can infer what L believed according to his metaphysics from the >>way he esplains the succession of plants. plant to seed to plant to seed etc. >> >>the seed has a plant curled up inside, this curled up plant unfolds to >>a full plant, which then produces a new plant seed and the process continues. >> >>But this is not reincarnation, for each new plant comes out the >>plant-within-plant-within-plant ad infinitum that has individualized >>vegetable souls >>created at the beginning of the universe. Presumably it is the same with man, >> >>except only those written in the Book of Life (part of the PEH) would be >>reincarnated. >> >>Attached to a rotting corpse is another way of saying that we sleep after >>death >>until we are resurrected in our bodies (now rehabilitated) after death. >> >> >> >> >> >>Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 5/18/2013 >>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 email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.