Re: Why I follow Leibniz and not yesterday's physical science
Mass is sufficient to distort both our 4D spacetime and its entangled 4D complex energy-momentum spacetime because everything that happens in one is reflected in the other, It's like Indras Pearls all reflecting each other. because the Pearls are all entangled and quantum coherent. Monads should behave similarly. The "hard problem" is solved by entanglement of the brain processes with the monad processes. Expect the brain to contain Bose-Einstein Condensates BECs. as the mind already is one. Leibniz had excellent imagination. But he would have considered entanglement to be magic and reject it. Comp and/or digital loop-string theory is the way. Not Leibniz in fine detail. yanniru. On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > 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 > >--
Why I follow Leibniz and not yesterday's physical science
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). Mon
