Monads are the real atoms of nature.

[BidenPresident]

THE MONADOLOGY (1714)
by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz



1. The Monad, of which we shall here speak, is nothing but a simple substance,
which enters into compounds. By 'simple' is meant 'without parts.'

2. And there must be simple substances, since there are compounds; for a
compound is nothing but a collection or aggregatum of simple things.

3. Now where there are no parts, there can be neither extension nor form
nor divisibility. These Monads are the real atoms of nature and, in a
word, the elements of things.

https://homepages.uc.edu/~martinj/History_of_Logic/Leibniz/Leibniz - Monadology.pdf

 

[Cypress]

A pretty good insight by Liebniz considering it was the early 17th century.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

A pretty good insight by Liebniz considering it was the early 17th century.

Almost like he was familiar with Democritus

 

[Cypress]

Now where there are no parts, there can be neither extension nor formn or divisibility. These Monads are the real atoms of nature and, in a word, the elements of things.

It's possible our souped up chimpanzee brains have been asking the wrong questions for two thousand years.

Indivisible and indestructible 'particles' might be a mental construct of our brains.

In the 20th century, Einstein showed that matter and energy were fundamentally interchangeable.

In the late 20th and 21st centuries, supposedly, string theory and it's offshoots supposedly call into question our classical notion of fundamental particles -- which may be just localized perturbations in energy fields.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

It's possible our souped up chimpanzee brains have been asking the wrong questions for two thousand years.

Indivisible and indestructible 'particles' might be a mental construct of our brains.

In the 20th century, Einstein showed that matter and energy were fundamentally interchangeable.

In the late 20th and 21st centuries, supposedly, string theory and it's offshoots supposedly call into question our classical notion of fundamental particles -- which may be just localized perturbations in energy fields.

Woah. That sounds SUPER INTELLECTUAL and really really cool. Good googling.

 

[Cypress]

Woah. That sounds SUPER INTELLECTUAL and really really cool.

Good googling.

Projection.

I didn't have to google anything since I wrote about this over a year ago because I invested my time in reading and watching a streaming video course on string theory --->

I finished this series on string theory last night. These are my money takeaways.

String theory is the only piece of mathematics at this time that can explain all the known forces. Closed loops and open strings vibrate in such a way as to produce "notes". We perceive these notes as gravitons (gravity), and the bosons responsible for the electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces.

The vibration of strings supposedly produce "notes" which we perceive as the fermions and bosons of particle physics (aka, the quarks, electrons, and force carriers we associate with physical reality)

Frantic googling is your calling card

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Projection.

I didn't have to google because I wrote about this over a year ago because I invested my time in reading and watching a streaming video course on string theory --->




Frantic googling is your calling card

Oh, cmon...you google. You googled "Freezing point Depression" then you googled "QM and Consciousness", etc.

There's really no difference between your frantic googling and just typing out words from the books you bought without comprehension.

You LOVE to Google.

 

[Cypress]

Oh, cmon...you google. You googled "Freezing point Depression" then you googled "QM and Consciousness", etc.

There's really no difference between your frantic googling and just typing out words from the books you bought without comprehension.

You LOVE to Google.

I accept your tacit and grudging admission that

I didn't have to Google any of this

I actually invested time off forum to learn about it myself,

and that I provided you undeniable proof no googling was required on this thread.

 

[BidenPresident]

A pretty good insight by Liebniz considering it was the early 17th century.

Monadology written in 1714.

 

[BidenPresident]

It's possible our souped up chimpanzee brains have been asking the wrong questions for two thousand years.

Indivisible and indestructible 'particles' might be a mental construct of our brains.

In the 20th century, Einstein showed that matter and energy were fundamentally interchangeable.

In the late 20th and 21st centuries, supposedly, string theory and it's offshoots supposedly call into question our classical notion of fundamental particles -- which may be just localized perturbations in energy fields.

Mondads are intelligent systems.

 

[AProudLefty]

Almost like he was familiar with Democritus

Basically yeah.

The problem is that the more you try to divide something, the more comes out of it.

 

[AProudLefty]

It's possible our souped up chimpanzee brains have been asking the wrong questions for two thousand years.

Indivisible and indestructible 'particles' might be a mental construct of our brains.

In the 20th century, Einstein showed that matter and energy were fundamentally interchangeable.

In the late 20th and 21st centuries, supposedly, string theory and it's offshoots supposedly call into question our classical notion of fundamental particles -- which may be just localized perturbations in energy fields.

"Localized perturbations" that don't change over time. Interesting.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

The more people try to contemplate things that are unknowable at our present level of evolution,
the more outrageous theories will be proposed,
virtually all of them probably manifested at the ass-extraction level.

 

[BidenPresident]

The more people try to contemplate things that are unknowable at our present level of evolution,
the more outrageous theories will be proposed,
virtually all of them probably manifested at the ass-extraction level.

What any of that supposed to make sense?

 

[Into the Night]

It's possible our souped up chimpanzee brains have been asking the wrong questions for two thousand years.

So you believe you descended from chimps. I think I have found your problem.

Indivisible and indestructible 'particles' might be a mental construct of our brains.

Nah. Particles are real.

In the 20th century, Einstein showed that matter and energy were fundamentally interchangeable.

No, he didn't. He showed they were related. Matter and energy are not the same thing.

In the late 20th and 21st centuries, supposedly, string theory and it's offshoots supposedly call into question our classical notion of fundamental particles -- which may be just localized perturbations in energy fields.

Ah. A String Theory worshiper.

 

[Into the Night]

THE MONADOLOGY (1714)
by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz



1. The Monad, of which we shall here speak, is nothing but a simple substance,
which enters into compounds. By 'simple' is meant 'without parts.'

2. And there must be simple substances, since there are compounds; for a
compound is nothing but a collection or aggregatum of simple things.

3. Now where there are no parts, there can be neither extension nor form
nor divisibility. These Monads are the real atoms of nature and, in a
word, the elements of things.

https://homepages.uc.edu/~martinj/History_of_Logic/Leibniz/Leibniz - Monadology.pdf

This, of course, was falsified by quantum mechanics and the development of the periodic table.

 

[Cypress]

"Localized perturbations" that don't change over time. Interesting.

We know that atomic nuclei participate in fusion and fission, so I guess the loops and strings in String theory must account for the Standard Model that through different vibrations.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh, cmon...you google. You googled "Freezing point Depression" then you googled "QM and Consciousness", etc.

There's really no difference between your frantic googling and just typing out words from the books you bought without comprehension.

You LOVE to Google.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

What any of that supposed to make sense?

Was the above sentence structure supposed to make sense?

At least literate people knew what I meant.

 

[BidenPresident]

56. Now this connexion or adaptation of all created things to each and of each
to all, means that each simple substance has relations which express all the
others, and, consequently, that it is a perpetual living mirror of the universe.

https://homepages.uc.edu/~martinj/History_of_Logic/Leibniz/Leibniz - Monadology.pdf

Anticipating the concept of complementarity in quantum mechanics.