Monads are the real atoms of nature.

Cupressus said:
Hypocrites like you are funny. But you are also EVIL. You ask people to kill themselves.
Click to expand...

14. The treatment of Incendiary Troll accounts. Definition: Posting solely for reaction, to harass, or stalk. Whether single or secondary, those accounts posting solely for reaction and/or harassment and not contributing to the discussion in any way post at the sole discretion of the JPP Admin Team and may be removed at any moment.
 
BidenPresident said:
14. The treatment of Incendiary Troll accounts. Definition: Posting solely for reaction, to harass, or stalk. Whether single or secondary, those accounts posting solely for reaction and/or harassment and not contributing to the discussion in any way post at the sole discretion of the JPP Admin Team and may be removed at any moment.
Click to expand...

WHICH IS WHY I POINTED OUT I HAVE MADE MORE SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY ON THIS THREAD THAN YOU. You are the "incendiary troll".

AND you are evil. You constantly tell people to kill themselves.

You are PURE EVIL.
 
BidenPresident said:
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
Click to expand...

Since superseded by atomic theory and particle physics.

Atoms have been a point of interest for countless philosophers since Democritus. The reality may be much more confusing. As other posters have noted there is an energy-mass equivalence and then there's the possibility that everything is little more than field perturbations as another poster noted.

There may be no "there" there.

Which is why it is important to understand Quantum Mechanics to understand the nature of particles at this size scale. Beyond that all bets are off since String Theory is still pretty hypothetical
 
Cupressus said:
Since superseded by atomic theory and particle physics.

Atoms have been a point of interest for countless philosophers since Democritus. The reality may be much more confusing. As other posters have noted there is an energy-mass equivalence and then there's the possibility that everything is little more than field perturbations as another poster noted.

There may be no "there" there.

Which is why it is important to understand Quantum Mechanics to understand the nature of particles at this size scale. Beyond that all bets are off since String Theory is still pretty hypothetical
Click to expand...

Amazing, you consistently refuse to discuss topic of thread. You will be gone soon.
 
Here's a brief description of "Perturbation" in Quantum Mechanics from THIS SOURCE

rExlhGh.png


If particles are nothing but field effects, IS there any need for a "monad"?
 
This seems to be the place where philosophy runs up against real science. If the goal was to create a solution to the Mind-Body problem it seems like an ad hoc idea to come up with something like a "monad".

But Liebniz can be forgiven...he didn't have access to the view of the world modern science has. We know a LOT about the subatomic particle zoo and we know a lot about "consciousness". Consciousness need not be embodied in some "particle" or even in a physical thing. It can be an emergent property which arises out of a suite of neurons. This is why we can likely locate it in a region of the brain as these neurons activate in concert.

I see little need for "monads" but I'd be open to reconsidering them if there was something that couldn't be explained by modern understanding which was MUCH deeper than Leibniz would have had access to.

Such is the nature of philosophy and science. Sometimes hand in hand, not always.
 
65728d11c1605aa157b7d33e37ce1608.jpg

Cupressus said:
Not technically. Surficially, yes. 100%. I've got many of those books on my shelf right now: "In Search of Schroedinger's Cat" and "Schroedinger's Kitten" by Gribbin, multiple biographies of Feynman and Alvarez as well as "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" and "Dark Sun" by Richard Rhodes. They all do an admirable job of explaining QM quite nicely for the interested amateur audience, but I disagree that it really gives an insight into the ACTUAL stuff. It's at best a shadow on the wall of the cave and not the real deal.

And that's the problem in my view: people take what feels like a pretty complete understanding when, in fact, it is anything but. This is where the amateur starts to over-extrapolate meanings and infer something that isn't there simply because they've been looking for a place to stash all the weird stuff they can't really figure out otherwise.

There's probably many, many times that number (and diff eq = mathematics)
Click to expand...
Great post. This should have been the OP.

You have In search of Schroedinger's Cat on your shelf. I carry it in my mind. I read it when it came out and I both hated and loved that book. I hated it because I found the author to be a scheister who hyped quantum mechanics as mysterious, inexplicable magic. However, I am nonetheless grateful for the way my resulting disappointment nonetheless got me thinking in the right direction and correctly understanding the big picture. A few days ago you (brilliantly) mentioned in one of your posts the all-too-frequent abuses of QM, and it reminded me of the frustration I had when I read that book. I could see that you belong at the adult's table discussing this topic. Cypress, on the other hand, doesn't understand anything he is coloring at the children's table, and he isn't even staying within the lines ... all the while declaring that using crayons is somehow beyond the capabilities of everyone on JPP. I wish BidenPresident had accepted your offer to join us for the discussion but "fuck you" seems to be pegging his cognitive needle.

How do you suppose Cypress is going to show that I don't understand QM or String Theory? Any guesses?

I disagree with your closing sentiment regarding "amateurs" over-extrapolating. In this context, everyone is an amateur because regardless of one's job or background, no one is gifted with omniscience. There is no class of people who have been pulled aside and handed "the Truth" with the corresponding "the Data." The big picture is quite simple, actually, and straightforward. No one needs to know the position and the momentum of every molecule in the ocean to understand the ocean for what it is. Saying that there will always be more to learn about the ocean does not prevent millions of people from successfully going to the beach, enjoying a swim, understanding how the waves work, etc., or from extrapolating into scuba diving, fishing, surfing, etc.

Nature does not confuse me, and people who might be confused, e.g. Cypress, do not have the power to erase my understanding or to discount my ability to help others understand.

This is one reason I enjoy discussing this topic with
Into the Night​
and gfm7175. I am an atheist who views nature as a grand collection of interrelated, random events that form an incomprehensible cause-effect chain, whereas they are strong Christians who are proud of their faiths and who see everything following a type of controlled plan, i.e. our respective high level understandings are just about the same, differing at the philosophical level (which they would classify as the theistic level). However, if anyone tries to contribute in such a way to one of Cypress' threads, he feels his stature being threatened because he cannot tolerate the idea that someone might know something that he doesn't. He will immediately attack and rush to mock the contribution with a :lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup: ... ultimately declaring that said contributor never went to school and never learned what was contributed.

I'm hoping Trumpet changes his mind, stops being a total coward and creates a thread on Maxwell's equations. That could be a lot of fun.

[dispensing with the usual closing portrait]
 
Cupressus said:
Which is why it is important to understand Quantum Mechanics to understand the nature of particles at this size scale.
Click to expand...
Nope. This is why it is important to understand classical physics. QM happens to be the only tools for dealing with the quantum world, but for an understanding, you need the classical physics.

Cupressus said:
Beyond that all bets are off since String Theory is still pretty hypothetical
Click to expand...
Not "pretty hypothetical." It is completely hypothetical and 0% practical ... unless you want to point to some technology that was engineered using String Theory.
 
b1d90b29881d56a10a3fe24dc211ff5c.jpg

BidenPresident said:
You troll my threads. You are a parasite.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. You troll your own threads, dumping your shit into them. You don't find others looking to collect shit with the intention of subsisting off it. You are the only one. It gives a clear indication of why you are a "shit for brains." You try, and you try, and you try ... but you just can't seem to do any better than "fuck you." Because you are a shit-for-brains, this doesn't register as the glaring clue that it should.

ef77a985dc2193fba05df014e109723b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top